Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Derek Russell


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

W. Derek Russell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ANYBIO as there are no reliable sources totally independent of the subject that discuss him in detail. Article creator States subject has won multiple significant awards showing he meets WP:CREATIVE, but I've found 0 indication of that. John from Idegon (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll contact the subject, to see if he can provide better references for me. Admittedly, perhaps I can be more specifix with what awards he won.Tr114 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

At least three references to Russell winning awards for his work. I’m about to cite them properly, but first I’ll share them here.

Tr114 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hosting a syndicated podcast with a well-known actor with a large fanbase of nearly 100,000 on Instagram as well as winning journalism awards and writing for publications such as DC Comics and appearing in special features for his work on television shows is more than enough to keep this page alive and free of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3014:2504:7A00:F5B5:5BB5:A5AA:2200 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. "X followers" is an argument to avoid, and I'm afraid the awards are regional and relatively minor -- even the 1st place is from a state-level trade industry organization and not signifiant enough to establish notability (and the source is questionable). What's missing is significant coverage about the subject specifically, in independent reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - as the page creator my opinion is admittedly biased and may not count for much; but if more evidence notability is be needed; I know several of Mr. Russell’s podcasts were featured and reviews in SciFiNow. If I added and cited the issue numbers, would that help the case any? It’s my opinion that the page needs to be expanded, yes, but not deleted. Like many wiki pages, it’s a work in progress. Just because it’s incomplete doesn’t necessarily mean the man doesn’t warrant an article.Tr114 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of Russell’s notability, instances of the podcasts he produces being referenced in the mainstream press.

TVLine:

Fox News:

ET Online:

People:

Tr114 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * DeleteI couldn't find a mention of Russell in any of those references. It also appears in this edit caption that the primary contributor is s WP:SPA closely connected to the article's subject. Jacona (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet every single one mentions a show which he created and produces. If the creation is noteworthy, so is the creator. As for the accusation that I’m closely connected to him, while I’ve listened to the shows; I actually sent him correspondence telling him I was making a page and trying to gather more specific information from the source. Such as the years he attended said school and university. Tr114 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the creation is noteworthy, so is the creator -- no, not by the definition of notability we use here, see WP:NOTINHERITED. As for corresponding directly with the article subject to obtain information for the article, that constitutes original research, which is also contrary to Wikipedia policy. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears I’ve said and done all I can for the case for keeping it. I was unaware of that original research policy, my level of connection to him is that I messaged him privately via twitter to see if he could be kind enough to verify some information for me. He was. Very pleasant man, who I personally believe is noteworthy. That said, if no one else agreed by the notice runs it’s course; I’ll respect the majority decision. I did my best, I’m still a novice editor. I’d rather there not be any hostility over this. I was merely trying to make a page for a man i’ve known of and respects for many years. I didn’t mean to compromise my own effort by reaching out to him personally for that fact check. Tr114 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Justification for this article seems to argue that a subject’s existence equals being qualified rather than being of encyclopedic importance. Sources are social media/user download sites/small time non-notable publications/trivial mentions by association (e.g. WP:INHERITED), etc. It’s original research built around first hand references rather than significant independent third party verification. Re: the “Award Winning” justification. An award from The Better Newspaper competition held by the Mississippi Press Association—even first place—might look good on one’s linkedin profile, but it doesn’t meet wikipedia’s importance standards. I researched this and I can’t even count how many 1st place awards are handed out. And they do it twice a year! ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:12, 13 January 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.