Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Aston

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Aston

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Run of the mill journalist, WP:GNG not demonstrated. Also is an WP:ORPHAN. Swan505 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - Does not meet WP:GNG. However, as the page creator is, I think, topic banned from AfD, in the interests of balance, I'll report his view. I placed a notability banner on this in October and he removed it with an edsum: there is clearly no notability issue, clearly GNG is met by the significant coverage of this subject provided by the independent publications Crikey and the ABC through MediaWatch. I did not take to AfD because the journalist had a column that appears to have been notorious enough that Mediawatch wrote an article about him on his departure calling him "the notoriously acerbic man-about-town who writes Rear Window for The Australian Financial Review." I disagree that this is sufficient to meet WP:N. It is not clear what we can say in a BLP about the subject from this, and a mention in Australian Financial Review would be more appropriate if the column was so notorious, but a couple of articles expressing relief that he has gone do not show WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and are themselves primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Sirfurboy. Being featured on Mediawatch is not sign of being notable or meeting WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree with Sirfurboy. Journos talking about other journos generally is not a sign of being notable or meeting WP:JOURNALIST. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 3 January 2024 (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.