Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hollie McKay

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hollie McKay


3 reviews and still not the convincing we need for an article, and what's here is still not significant in notability. SwisterTwister  talk  16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the continued dismissal of this article about a respected journalist. My last discussion with reviewer Cerebellum indicated that what was needed to show notability were articles featuring the subject as the topic of articles showing a progression of development as a journalist of note; to journal how the subject came to be. Several articles supporting this request were researched and supplied. The subject is clearly a bona fide journalist with a major news bureau. The body of work of the subject is certainly worthy of cataloging and curating. Many other journalists with Wikipedia pages have far less material in their pages but seem to be well beyond acceptability standard. The rejecting reviewer seems to be applying an unusually high bar compared to other similar articles in the system at this point. Please provide a list of what's still missing? Why exactly is this one less worthy that the many others already approved as pages on Wikipedia?

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

This is the link to the talk entry with reviewer Cerebellum identifying what areas of additional citations were needed with examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cerebellum#21:40:35.2C_23_January_2017_review_of_submission_by_DennisLLSantiago. The guidance specifically stated that articles focusing on the subject were what was needed. Per this guidance, several new citations were added in the early life and FOX Culture Reporter sections of the draft specifically to meet the reviewer's counsel. It was my impression that this was what was needed to meet the "independent" notation criteria.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Looking up the Wikipedia policy on living persons, this entry does seem to satisfy the "one verifiable statement rule" for biographies.

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people[edit source] Further information: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. Once the article is tagged in this manner, the prod blp tag may not be removed until such a source is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after 7 days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Please help me understand what I am missing here. Thanks, Dennis

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Please advise on the following idea. Analyzing this draft, I believe there are at least two topical articles it can be transformed into. These being,

1. FOX 411 Pop Tarts - an article about the video and online news entertainment column by FOX News from 2007 to 2013 authored by Hollie McKay. This news series embodies around 1700+ articles and 300+ video clips and was a part of FOX News' entry into the online news market space.

2. The Human Cost of ISIS 2014-2016 - an article about the series of vignettes painting a picture of the time of ISIS in Iraq from its emergence in 2014 to the battle for Mosul in 2016. The article would discuss the fighters of ISIS, the victims of ISIS and the forces fighting ISIS using and expanded version of the template from the draft to include more illustrative quote excerpts from articles.

I am thinking I may have tried to capture too much in a single article around the author and perhaps should rethink my approach and focus on the topical elements that the author's body of work created that are noteworthy for an encyclopedia.

I would appreciate guidance on whether this change in approach is advisable.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

I have done a radical edit to reorganize the article to focus the relevance of the subject's work to her news bureaus' business agenda. I also added a list of other Wikipedia content pages that use citations to the subject. I have resubmitted the draft for re-review.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago


 * Keep. Meets GNG based on: Inner West Courier and The Sunday Telegraph (Australia) .  There are a couple articles covering her book as well: Mackay Mercury/Daily Mercury, Muswellbrook Chronicle .  And a couple brief mentions in articles about her work, just to show that she is still getting coverage: Wonkette , Mediaite .  All of these sources except the last two are local newspapers, but WP:AUD only applies to corporations so they should still count towards the GNG, right?  I'll rework the article later today to address its content issues. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cerebellum, thank you for taking the time to edit my draft. I now see what the essential elements you were looking for are to develop independent confirmation of notability. This is my very first article attempt of this type for Wikipedia and, based on the edits you made, I clearly had written it more in the form of a detailed profiling dossier with attention to academic levels of citation to back up each statement of the previously 90+ citation draft. Now that I know what to look for I should be able to more efficiently contribute future articles. I hope this one is eventually approved. I shall make an edit clean up pass to it to correct any errors that may have linger from the last edit. Thank you for helping me learn about how Wikipedia works. It's different from the other mediums I've composed for and I wanted to learn how it worked. Best regards,

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.