Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Jung

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 Delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Jung

Fred Jung (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Listed with maintenance tags for references and notability, prodded by me on the grounds that no attention paid to the notability tag, prod and maintenance tags removed by unregistered editor without any improvement. Only edit by article's starter, so probably fails WP:COI Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I can find lots of things by Fred Jung, but nothing about him. This is a common problem for journalists and critics, unless they write a book which receives multiple reviews. Perhaps Wikipedia's notability criteria for journalists and critics need to be reconsidered. --Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~Tiptoety talk 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Does not appear to comply with WP:Bio#Creative_professionals. Evidence of output is not evidence of notability. A journalist, by the nature of his or her profession, will have a volume of material out there in the public realm and may therefore generate significant Google hits. Nonetheless, Google hits alone are not evidence of notability. Debate (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete no sources, fails notability, agree with Debate --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete dead end, orphaned article (no links in, no links out), no sources, unformatted mess of a one-paragraph resumé. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (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.