Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David James Baird

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. Mailer Diablo 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David James Baird

Non-notable freelance journalist, only 42 Google hits for full name. Kimchi.sg 13:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Porqin 13:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Journalist with solid career in major daily newspapers a worthy social commentator. Barrison

  If such a journalist had a solid career in "major daily newspapers", he would, for one, get more google results. Dark Shikari 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Sun News Pictorial was a newspaper with the largest circulation in Australia. Barrison

  Lots of journalists worked for The Sun News Pictorial, it doesn't make them notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough. Even if someone is or was a journalist for a major newspaper, that does not imply automatic notability. Dark Shikari 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• The press is known as the "Fourth Estate" its influence "Watergate", for instance, can be powerful. A person does not have to be a household name to have had a significant impact. The number of hits on google must be kept in proportion and should not be used as an exclusive measure. Barrison
• Delete -- nothing unusual or noteworthy about his journalistic career. NawlinWiki 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Judging from Google Zeitgeist and taking into consideration that "Wikipedia" rates well, the majority of google users only seem interested in holidays and "famous" celebrities. The definitions of fame and notoriety will be the topic of ceaseless debate. Baird's major successes were pre google. However, to maintain the "integrity" of Wikipedia I am happy to accept the judges' decision. An interesting test case. Barrison 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While he worked for Australia's biggest newspaper, he doesn't seem to have won any awards such as a Walkley or achieved any special distinction as a journalist in Australia or elsewhere. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• I can understand the concern over little internet information being available, however a search of the newspaper section of the State Library of Victoria would reveal a volume of work by this journalist. In the world of showbusiness a journalist who promotes an artist often contibutes to their success. Barrison 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  Factiva and the Aus NZ Reference Centre don't have any significant results for his name. He is simply a not notable journalist, his website is not notable and certainly does not look like the website of an accomplished, notable journo. Under your criteria (merely being a member of the press, giving celebrities publicity etc), all journalists would qualify for an article. I strongly encourage you to read WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability to get an understanding of where other editors are coming from. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a not notable journalist. Also, there seems to be verifiability issues. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2006

(UTC)

• The comment that the website does not "look like the website of an accomplished, notable journo" seems to bring into contention whether Baird was a journalist at all based on non-appearance on the internet. A manual search of the newspaper section of SLV will reveal many articles. As in previous comments I have to agree with the idea that he has not been acclaimed as John Pilger or Peter Oborne, for instance. Barrison 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- I@n 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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.