Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rene Ritchie


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rene Ritchie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a blogger without enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he passes any of our notability rules — of the five sources being cited here, only #1 counts as substantive coverage of him. #2 and #3 both merely mention his name in passing as a commenter in coverage of something else, thus failing to be substantively about him, and #4 and #5 are both primary sources which cannot confer notability at all. I'm willing to withdraw this if good sourcing can be added to replace the crap, but he's not entitled to keep an article which only has one reliable source in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A blogger, but a very influential one. Editor-at-large and listed as one of the top people to look for on technology and Apple related stuff. References state it clearly, iguess we should keep the article. Aspiratrona (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as per . Apple products expert, highly influential, multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there are not "multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources" being cited here — with one single exception, every last reference in this article is to primary sources and trivial coverage that is not sufficient coverage to get a person past GNG. If there's actually enough other coverage out there to get him past GNG, then by all means show your work so we can evaluate that properly — but he does not get past GNG on the basis of the sourcing as it exists now. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * CBC Canada looks nontrivial; same with Fortune magazine. Ditto Business Insider. Not sure what you're getting at, Bearcat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortune: Rene Ritchie is not the subject of the coverage, but is merely mentioned in passing within an article whose subject is something else. It is, thus, not coverage of him. Business Insider: a blurb, a whopping 38 words long total, which is coverage of him but fails the part where the coverage has to be substantial. It is not enough to provide sources which confirm that he exists; he has to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article on here. Not 38-word blurbs, not "gives one quote in an article about something else"; substantial coverage of him. And I already identified the CBC article as a source that was substantively about him (see "only #1 counts as substantive coverage of him" in my original comment), so you're not schoolin' me anything I haven't already taken into account with that one — but one substantive source is not enough to get a person past GNG if it's the only substantive source in the pot. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ritchie is clearly identified in many sources as an Apple expert; for me, the three sources above, by themselves, demonstrate notability, not even a borderline case. If still not satisfied, there are numerous other sources which can be combined to establish notability -- here is the rule -- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... These sources include Network World, Mac Observer, Mac World, here, here, Huffington Post, here, and here, and here -- none of these are mere mentions but sufficient to establish Ritchie as an Apple expert -- so again I really don't get why a case could be made that Ritchie is not notable. The picture that emerges is an influential Canadian blogger who is so well regarded that conventional Apple-oriented and computer-oriented trade publications routinely cite Ritchie as an Apple expert, with links to his iMore site, and who has a track record of making successful predictions, and no, I am not trying to school you, just making a case based on the rules. About your comment substantial coverage on him -- what's interesting is not Ritchie-as-a-person (eg what clothes he wears, what car he drives, what he thinks about world events) but Ritchie's Apple expertise -- that is what is interesting and notable -- substantial coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tomwsulcer. The topic passes WP:BASIC--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (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.