Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Mitchell (journalist)

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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mitchell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

unremarkable journalist. fails

• Delete not a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- thats debatable, Im updating the article including quite some references to his work œæœ(Rinotova (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi
  WP:JOURNALIST that should help you debate the subject. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Hi thanks for the feedback, we are talking about a journalist that had to escape the country of Venezuela because of political reasons, I'm currently supporting the article with more sources. (Rinotova (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment I've just looked at the references and IMHO nothing proves his notability...he's a jobbing freelance journalist who was the victim of an extorsion attempt in south america (as are a lot of people especially foreign nationals). The references that you provided are not free to view and nothing in the visible bits suggest that it was for political reasons. I found his blog http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/19/a-letter-from-a-correspondent-no-longer-in-venezuela/ and he clearly says that he was forced to leave because he is well off

I quote from his blog "There is a general sense of lawlessness and anarchy, which probably created the conditions for the extortion attempt against me. Criminals rob and murder with impunity. Extortion attempts against business people are common, particularly in the border towns close to Colombia. Many pay up. Not many well-off foreigners live in Venezuela but extortion against foreigners takes place in Caracas." So I am afraid he was NOT forced to escape the country for political reasons. When you make unverifiable statements that are contradicted by the subject's own blog to try and prove notability there may be a a

WP:COI

problem here...

as a journalist he must fulfill at least one of the following criteria

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4 The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By political reasons I mean Foreign Journalist not being able to talk against the gov, allow me to correct my statement as it stated on the article and supported by the reference, he had to leave the country due to extortions attpemts, as a British Journalist, both probable target aginst freedom of speech and victim of extorsion in VE, plus the intense amount of work, verifiable now on the new references, it is a worthy article. (Rinotova (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment
  WP:DISCLOSURE on your user page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Im invested in the debate :), and went through quite some work to gather/research this info, which again, I defend as reliable, and supported as you can see in the updated inline citations. (Rinotova (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• comment please answer the question where did all the very personal information come from as there are no sources. This looks very much like COI editing. Domdeparis (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - citations are articles by Mitchell rather than about Mitchell. There are no citations for large chunks about Mitchell's early life. Statements about his career are actually not all sourced, either - the fact that Mitchell's work appeared in a certain journal does not mean he is employed by the journal, as is implied.Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I've been watching this and I'll concur everything is trivial and unconvincing with the article emphasizing it, therefore there's no convincing article, regardless of anything else insinuated. We're not one to keep articles simply to "hope for improvements" or "hope it maybe gets better soon". SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 2 December 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.