Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Newman

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 redirect to Yes Network. Notability not established, despite ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Article history still available if there is any sourced content that should be merged to the target article. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Newman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ProQuest only turns up one news article that can be considered significant coverage in the course of a 25+ year career. Only significant coverage from Google is interviews with blogs and biography pages from employers. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the need for reliable, independent sources when discussing a public figure who has been on television for, as you mentioned, 25+ years. She exists, even if there is little external coverage about it. Milchama (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability requires verifiable evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles about people just because they exist — people are still highly vulnerable to having false or damaging or libellous information inserted into their articles. Notability on Wikipedia, rather, is always conditional on being the subject of reliable source coverage, and no topic ever gets an exemption from that. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily notable. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on what evidence? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence does not automatically equate to notability, but the level of reliable sourcing required to get her from existence to notability has not been shown. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YES Network where she is listed. Spanneraol (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yes Network per Spanneraol seems to be the appropriate approach if signifciant coverage cannot be found. Rlendog (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All but four of the currently listed 22 on-air staff (as per the navigational template) have dedicated articles, including some that I understand to be in a more junior role than Ms Newman. In my mind, if this article is to be redirected to the network, a joint nomination of all these articles makes a lot more sense. Samsara 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what kind of coverage the other subjects have. Certainly some YES on-air staff has received more coverage than Nancy Newman. Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it depends on their notability. Let me give you an example. The Abrahamic God is attested in only a single source considered by some to be dubious, and all other works are purely derivative and hence not independently reliable. However, on Wikipedia, a large number of articles are dedicated to him, and rightly so. Why? Because in spite of the meagre coverage, he (or she, if you wish to go that road) is highly notable. Coverage and notability are not the same thing. Moreover, two or three source articles more about one subject than another is not even a statistically significant difference. I'll repeat: source-counting does not give a definitive answer to the question of notability. Samsara 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability almost always depends on coverage. The Abrahamic God may only be attested to in one primary source, but is also covered in many secondary sources. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misunderstanding how sourcing works, because the secondary sources count for more toward notability than the primary source does: anybody can publish their own primary source evidence of their existence, such as a website or a manifesto or a bible or a LinkedIn résumé, but notability is a factor of the degree to which other people are or aren't influenced to write "derivative" works about that primary person's impact on everybody else. The Abrahamic God, in other words, does not have an article because he published primary source proof of his own existence; he has an article because of all the ink that's been deployed by other people in the next 2,000+ years about the impact that his document has had on everything that's happened since he published it. And it works the same way for television sportscasters, too: the ability to point to her employer's website (or her own) as proof that she exists is not what gets her an article. The existence of media coverage about her career, in sources independent of her, is. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're on an extreme tangent now, as primary sources were never part of the specific discussion regarding Ms Newman. The problem with the source-counting approach so many of you seem to be advocating is that it's very easy to be "inspired" to publish a news item by another news item you have seen. I refer you to the Matthew effect. Biographical monographs are always more compelling, and, look, none of the presenters of this network have them. And none of what you have written in any way even touches my point that one or even three sources more for one person do not establish greater notability by any rational, i.e. statistical, analysis - and that's about the number by which these various presenters differ from one another. And by bringing up self-published sources, you are actually corroborating my point - sources are not all equal, and by simply counting them, one can quickly get confused about this. Samsara 22:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make some further points regarding your reply:

I never made the argument that her existence was enough to justify an article. I find it unkind and unprofessional of you to imply that I did. The point I did make is that whatever the outcome of this debate, it's likely her colleagues' articles deserve the same fate.
Three out of the four sources used in her article are not, as far as I can see, published by an employer, past or present, or herself. If you have further information on this aspect, let's please see it rather than making awkward hints about it. Samsara 22:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the network page. Working journalist who lacks sufficient reliable, secondary source coverage to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.