Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Scott (journalist)


 * 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   no consensus. MuZemike 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Scott (journalist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Additionally, the article reads like a resume, and needs a fundamental rewrite (not much to salvage). ƒ(Δ)² 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - some of the journalists here on Wikipedia possibly don't need a page on their own but Steve Scott, especially since presenting Night Watch, has become much more of a household figure. Aditya, do you have a personal grind against British journalists or something? You've nominated loads of them in the last 24 hours. Did you get a job rejection from ITN? ;-) lol. --193.200.176.30 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a list of ITN journalists, mostly created by people with potential conflicts of interest, and nearly all written in a resume/POV style. I left about 50% of them (those that had a decent claim to notability). The ones I nominated, however, have absolutely no claim to notability. You say Steve Scott is a household name. He has no reliable sources covering him. I don't live in the UK either, so I can't judge how well known he is unless sources are provided. He may, of course, be notable. I've tried searching for sources, but I've found none. Though if you can find sources then it's perfectly possible to salvage the article. (He should satisfy WP:CREATIVE if his claim to notability is as a journalist, else WP:N). PS Why don't you log in? =P ƒ(Δ)² 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on. I know who you are. I found out. =D You can post from your account you know. It doesn't really matter much. ƒ(Δ)² 10:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Newsreader on a nationally broadcast news bulletin and presenter of a nationally broadcast TV show with his name in the title. RMHED .  11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very familiar face on British TV. Significant Web coverage not easy to come by (found this, this and this), but at the end of the day, he's a very well-known national TV presenter in the UK, which makes him notable.--Michig (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very frustrating, to say the least. The first link is not a reliable source. The second one has a picture of him dancing with some female news reader in some fund raising event. Third is an interview by a regional newspaper where he talks about the World Cup. Do you think that makes him notable? Do you propose to write an article from that one interview, and one picture of him dancing? How do you intend to make it verifiable? How do you intend to make sure he is notable? This AfD seems to be headed on the obvious course. (Bunch of people save it, saying he's notable. No one rewrites it, because there are no sources to rewrite it with. I remove all the unsourced claims on the article, stub it, and then re-AfD it.) ƒ(Δ)² 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did say "Significant Web coverage not easy to come by", and I'm not putting those forward as reliable sources, but there are still only five major national TV channels in the UK, and this man has regularly presented programmes on these channels to millions of viewers for several years. The article can be reduced to a stub if WP:V is an issue (it shouldn't be - most of the content is verifiable even if it's not easy to find significant coverage), but someone as well-known as him should have an article.--Michig (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The coverage doesn't have to be with web sources. It can be with offline content too. But there has to be some sort of coverage. ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This verifies that he presented 141 live football matches on Channel 5. Coverage found here. This verifies that he was ITN's Africa correspondent, this verifies that he was Channel 5's main live sports presenter for 4 years, and there's this from Western Daily Press. So where's the issue with WP:V?--Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) None establish notability. Presenting 141 football matches, for example, and being an African correspondent doesn't satisfy notability either. I get the feeling you haven't read WP:CREATIVE, as the links you're pointing out are totally irrelevant. ƒ(Δ)² 09:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These links are not at all irrelevant as one of your concerns was verifiability and these adequately address WP:V. Perhaps you could try assuming good faith - WP:CREATIVE is a guideline only and yes I have read it, thanks. The fact that Steve Scott is more famous than many journalists who would pass WP:CREATIVE means that he is notable.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not relative. I agree WP:CREATIVE is only a guideline, but so is WP:N, WP:(whatever), they all are guidelines. Notability is hard to judge by word of mouth. Just saying he's famous is not going to cut it. You're going to have to prove it. And please, do so through policy. IAR does not apply here. ƒ(Δ)² 11:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:V is a policy, not a guideline, as is WP:IAR. I can't imagine any television presenter who has presented thousands of national UK prime time terrestrial TV programmes not being notable enough for an article here, whether or not we have a specific guideline that spells that out, but you're entitled to your opinion. Let's see what others think, as it seems like neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this.--Michig (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ƒ(Δ)²</b> 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<hr style="width:50%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Undecided He seems to be notable enough, but article really has no sources saying so.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should say Keep, and tag the article as needing references. Emeraude (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that an article without sources is worthless, regardless of how important the subject may be. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added sources to the article.--Michig (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (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.