Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Howley (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Howley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has numerous spectacularly unreliable sources (e.g. Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon), a few merely unreliable (Talking Point Memo, anyone?) and a couple of WP:RS that are mere namechecks. This has not improved at all since the previous no-consensus close, indicating that there is no sustained coverage. A number of truly shitty sources have been added to the "further reading" section though. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 References  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Subject passes WP:BASIC, and has received ongoing coverage. North America1000 01:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As pointed out by Northamerica, Patrick has recieved significant independent coverage in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The Herald Sun. Passes WP:GNG.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - We need a special notability guideline for journalists, since other publications don't write about their competitors and their own publications are "self-sourced" by our notability rules. It's a catch 22 making journalists the toughest of all biographies to properly source. My inclination is to keep here, with a pinch of our policy of IAR. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. "spectacularly bad" nomination of notable journalist, I say this because of Nom's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT attitude towards right-of-center publications that - whether or not one supports their politics - certainly can and veritably do launch and support the careers of notable journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I dislike all crappy sources. Example: HuffPo promotes quackery all the time. It is largely coincidental that the current tribal climate has led right-leaning sources to place ideology above fact, resulting in widespread promotion of counterfactuals like climate change denialism or bogus claims of "oppression" of Christians. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AfDs with this little policy-based justification and this little evidence of WP:BEFORE are a waste of editorial time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.