Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh McConnell

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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh McConnell

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He's a popular tech journalist in Canada who breaks a lot of stories and makes frequent appearances in mainstream media here, but people won't know him unless they are actually from here. Was trying to find more information after seeing him on TV and there wasn't a central place that had all of this, so in my opinion a page should be warranted. The6Editor (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the reasons you cited are valid reasons for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please read
WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage about him, not by being the bylined author of media coverage about other things. But right across the board, the latter kind of "referencing" is what we have here for media sourcing — all of the sources where he's the subject are either
WP:JOURNALIST, but nothing here passes that standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 16 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.