Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Davie


 * 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. As a poorly-sourced WP:BLP alone this qualifies for deletion. The notability is not established whatsoever as a minor local host. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ross Davie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A radio producer for ~30 years and announcer for a few years on local Australia radio stations. No reliable, independent references in the article or to be found on the web, however he has a common name. Nothing inherently notable about a radio producer and short-time host. Bgwhite (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Incorrect - actually a radio "announcer" for ~30 years and producer for a few years on local Australian radio stations. Also the Australian Broadcasting Corporation link is independent. Although it is a link to promotional material for 4BC the biography is accurate. As a journalist and broadcaster for that length of time there are many independent references. Further independent references or links of relevance: Recording of Ross's radio history: http://www.historymakersradio.com/tag/ross-davie Journalist in 2005 Australian Budget Announcement: http://www.petercostello.com.au/transcripts/2005/2926-budget-interview-with-john-miller-ross-davie-4bc  Journalist in 2006 Australian Budget Announcement: http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=transcripts/2006/062.htm&pageID=004&min=phc&Year=2006&DocType=2 Deciding not to continue broadcasting with 4BC in 2008: http://wotnews.com.au/news/4BC__and__Ross_Davie/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.187.223 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SOURCES on what is or isn't an independent and reliable sources. Transcripts of programs done by Mr. Davie is neither a reference nor independent.  A reference by his employer is not independent and cannot be used towards notability concerns. An interview by Mr. Davie is also not independent.
 * Also, you have changed the article to now say he has been a broadcaster for much longer, but never added refs for it. Please only add referenced material or it will be undone. Bgwhite (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep ‣ Clearly a promotional article that needs to be curtailed if it was created by his son who is working with his private company, and it seems that there may be little freely-available information about him online so that anything more than a stub would require offline research, but it is claimed that he won a Raward / Australian Commercial Radio Award and seven of these Queensland "Goldie" awards. It also would seem to me that he meets the WP:ANYBIO criterion of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" in the field of Australian journalism if he was scoring interviews with the nation's Prime Minister and other ranking government officials, many MPs per a search on the web site of the Parliament of Australia, or the heads of national organizations like the Australian Medical Association .  -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how somebody being a radio broadcaster for about 5 years and has absolutely no references to back up "awards" is widely recognized. How can somebody be "widely recognized" without any references? Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the "Additional criteria" section of Notability (people) is to provide ways to assess people who may be notable but aren't obviously discussed as a topic in sources. If "widely recognized" just meant significant coverage in reliable sources there wouldn't be any reason to mention it as a criterion.  But he was obviously widely recognized enough for the prime minister of the country to want to appear on his show. -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, so widely mentioned that there is absolutely no independent and reliable sources about him... We are not talking about a historical figure. The Prime Minister going on a radio talk station during an election is not "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record".  So enduring that he got fired for low ratings?  Does that mean all the talk radio hosts in the country are now notable and are part of the enduring historical record?    You need to read Notability (people) again. "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" and especially the note, "Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians... An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer."  So a radio guy who is recent and not "historical" has nothing about him.  You are using a clause meant for historical and not a recently fired radio host of 5 years.
 * I don't think that I am being any less orthodox in my interpretation of Notability (people) and other guidelines by holding that someone directly and prominently involved in creating the enduring historical record in the field of Australian broadcast radio and radio journalism is part of that record than you are by pretending that wide recognition must occur in reliable sources which is not what's stated, (and again would be redundant if that was what it actually meant) that the awards don't count because they would require offline research to confirm, or pretending that because such criteria don't "guarantee" inclusion they're irrelevant and I can't base my opinion on them. If it makes you feel any better, I do think that this is a borderline case, which is why I said "Weak". -- ▸∮ truthious ᛔ andersnatch ◂ 20:13, 31 May 2012 (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.