Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Watts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Steph Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This stub seems to have been created for promotional purposes, and I can't find any other sources that cover Mr. Watts in detail other than the one in the article. The source in the article is from a media magazine, and it seems of limited use as a source as the entire magazine is aimed at promotion. The creator also appears to have a conflict of interest. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the result of this discussion is delete, then I would also recommend that the article be create protected, as it has been deleted three times already since April 30th. I think we should leave some time for Mr. Watts to become more notable before we allow his article to be created again. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This GNews hit looks independent, reliable and arguably notable - though also arguably not in the context of a BLP article. And the same argument might be made for a couple of the other GNews hits. The subject does rather seem to get involved with his stories. PWilkinson (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-found! I agree that there is significant coverage of Watts in this source, and it looks like it could contribute as evidence of notability. Also, I'm becoming a little concerned that I might have maligned the Cision Navigator source. I checked out the author of that source, and she appears to be a fairly well-respected writer. What do others think about the reliability of Cision Navigator? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another source from TVNewser. This one is also about the Drew Peterson case. It looks like Watts is notable enough for his role in this case, but this is just for one event, so adding him to the Drew Peterson article may be more appropriate. Having said that, there is also the matter of the Cision Navigator source, which I am still undecided on. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- N.b. The Cision Navigator source I mentioned is here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another source from TVNewser. This one is also about the Drew Peterson case. It looks like Watts is notable enough for his role in this case, but this is just for one event, so adding him to the Drew Peterson article may be more appropriate. Having said that, there is also the matter of the Cision Navigator source, which I am still undecided on. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-found! I agree that there is significant coverage of Watts in this source, and it looks like it could contribute as evidence of notability. Also, I'm becoming a little concerned that I might have maligned the Cision Navigator source. I checked out the author of that source, and she appears to be a fairly well-respected writer. What do others think about the reliability of Cision Navigator? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Steph Watts should not be deleted. If there is anyway to bring back the old Wikipedia article that has been around for years, before the change, I would appreciate it. If this one can't stay of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garland3688 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per new references located in discussion above. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2011 (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.