Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demarco Morgan

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 incubate. Unsourced BLP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demarco Morgan

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

Googlye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is news presenter at WNBC. There's a few sources on him, including his page where he works, and some other bits. However, I think the coverage overall is quite low and doesn't pass threshold. Not many Google hits given his position in media. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a number of hits on GNews. However, not many of them appear to constitute substantial coverage, most seem to just mention him. A few are reports written by him. Article also still has no inline sources so liable for BLP prod. Contains details that nobody can verify. Debate needs more participants. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your error here is "significant" and "substantial" are not the same thing, as WP:GNG states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". A number of less substantial are quite fine, as long as they are significant and address the subject in detail. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this easily sourcable article about award-winning news reporter and allow continued improvement over time through the course of regular editing. Individual was "Honorary Grand Marshal two years in a row for the United Negro College Fund, was "one of the only African Americans ranked in the nation's Top Ten Collegiate Journalists in the country in 2001 by Scripps Howard", was named by one of Ebony Magazine as one of Top 30 Future Young Leaders of America in 2006,[1] was named by South Florida Magazine as one of the top 40 most influential black professionals in 2008, and was presented in 2009 with the "Thurgood Marshall Prestige Award" for his community service in New York,[2] Many reliable sources speak toward the individual directly and in detail and in context to his career, even if he is not the main topic of the source article. Per definition at WP:GNG, such sources meet requirements as "significant"... and thus meet the GNG's rquirement that such sources exist. While yes, a lack of sources is always of a concern, that they DO exist means the article is improvable, and the assertions in the article can indeed be verified in multiple reliable sources. That no one has done so yet is not a reason to claim it cannot be done, nor is it a valid reason to delete. Notable is notable. Improvable is improvable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, none of those accolades would be considered a "major award". The first link is not independent of the subject. Where is all the significant coverage? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that WISN was affiliated with Ebony Magazine. Or is it that you are claiming that WISN is not allowed to report on a Ebony Magazine article if the article is about one of their own? Are you rather asking that the Ebony Magazine article inferred by the WISN article itself be brought forward? Or are you saying that Ebony Magazine reporting on African Americans is un-usable as not being "independent" of the subjects of their reports? I will opine that those "accolades" for an African American are certainly of note to the African American community of readers. And while "independent" is a concern, in reading WP:NEWSORG, it is seen that news aggencies reporting on themselves such should be considered on a case-by-case basis, as we are discussing information being provided by a news agency with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that these informations are in multiple reliable sources tends to give them more credence than less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate until sourced. I was going to close this "no consensus" per WP:NPASR but I don't feel comfortable doing that with an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or Incubate for anyone that wants to keep it until sourced. Personally, I see nothing of value at all in such unsourced BLP articles about semi notable people.Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough, as shown by MichaelQSchmidt, to establish notability, and there is enough verifiable detail at the WNBC website to make a workable article. In any event, there is more: here are two articles about him from the Tulsa World.[3][4]--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2010 (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.