Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert F. Worth


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert F. Worth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There are many available articles written by this journalist, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in RSs. Without any RSs, I think the article fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for journalists. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have to assume the two editors above clicked on the Gbooks and Gscholars links and saw the range of citations and extracts of his reports. A textbook even uses one of his pieces as the basis for a feature. He passes WP:AUTHOR #1. He is the NYT's man on the ground in Iraq and has been for over 5 years. The problem with journalists is that they are not very often written about, but this chap is certainly notable. There's then the BLP sourcing issue, but this article was created in 2007 so escapes that. Bigger digger (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Vote struck, see below. Bigger digger (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment When you subtract out the scholar hits that are his own articles (NYTimes/IHT), you get just a few north of 200 citations. With the books you get just south of 300 citations. According to the NY Times index (the first ref in the article), he has written or contributed to 1,078 articles. That ratio doesn't seem like the widely-cited sort of stat that would qualify for AUTHOR #1. And without any RSs indicating that he "regarded as an important figure", WP:AUTHOR #1 would not seem to be met unless we consider the sheer volume of his work as inherently notable. There are plenty of journalists who are written about and easily meet WP:BASIC / WP:AUTHOR; John Leland (journalist), for example. If somebody has done a profile or two of Worth, things would be different, but just a huge number of bylines doesn't seem to get him there. His PhD/academic work also seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A journalist is the most prolific type of writer, so the citation hit-rate will inevitably appear low. I would argue that major journalits in Iraq are notable, even if they don't receive the cultural press that has established the notability of John Leland (journalist). Furthermore, this simple search shows his work helps reference a number of wikipedia articles. I agree WP:ACADEMIC doesn't apply, but I still think he passes WP:AUTHOR #1. Bigger digger (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But we can't write an article without RSs. And it is not just that he hasn't received cultural press, he hasn't received any coverage in RSs that I (or so far anybody else) can find. Without RSs we cannot ascertain whether he is "regarded as an important figure" per AUTHOR #1, and even the citations he does have appear not to be from his journalist peers (as one would expect), so he seems to fail the second half of #1. Novaseminary (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete - Novaseminary is right. I believe this guy is more notable than half the sports people, celebs and fictional characters here, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to want to write about him. Their loss! Bigger digger (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (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.