Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Jim Taricani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 15:24, 14 October 2013 by imported>Amalthea (bot) (Reverted edits by Cyberbot II (talk) to last version by Uncle G's major work 'bot)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 07:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jim Taricani
Non-notable reporter. Reporters get imprisoned for failure to reveal their sources all the time. RickK 00:02, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Not in the US they don't (or at least I haven't heard about it and I would be shocked). Philip 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know what kind of fascist dictatorship you currently live in, but this sort of thing makes this guy notable AFAIAC. 7,000+ Google hits. sjorford:// 00:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Seems sufficiently notable (even in a fascist dictatorship) :) TigerShark 00:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. 7,820 Google hits for "Jim Taricani" most of which seem to be for this journalist. [1]
Reuters has done a story on imprisonment of journalists mentioning this guy. [2]
- Opops forgot to sign. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not 7,820 hits. You need to click through the Google toward the end. There are only 297 English links. Most are either links to news articles where the media discuss the issue surrounding his incarceration--which is reasonable considering it is in their field.--BenWilson 17:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable therefore keep Fuzz 01:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- please keep this article. Yuckfoo 01:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I would hope a journalist jailed for not revealing sources is still notable. --Lee Hunter 01:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously notable. --Centauri 01:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Sounds rather notable to me. --TIB (talk) 03:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, RickK is right. This does happen all the time - yes, even in the US. (Perhaps especially in the US where the protections that journalists enjoy encourage them to push the line.) Delete. This one event is not, in my opinion, enough to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. It might be an appropriate article in WikiNews, though. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Media beat-up. No evidence of notability. This guy would also be in trouble with Australian laws if he did the same thing here, just BTW, and I'm sure the usual media advocates would organise much the same campaign. Andrewa 12:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I thought it was notable, and Wikipedia was the first place I thought to look for this information. --Sdfisher 15:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The latest edits to this article have made me even more concerned that its inclusion is politically biased. See the talk page. Andrewa 20:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. A biographical article should mention birth-dates, accomplishments, etc. When someone finds himself writing an article about a person that just mentions one fact about him, in this case one fact that is currently in the news, it should trigger the question: should I be writing an article about this person, should I be looking for an article into which I can insert the one interesting fact about him, or should I be writing a new article on Journalistic ethics, Freedom of the press (which already exist in this case) which might be a suitable place to mention this information? If you decide one of the latter and mention the person in an existing or new general article, a Google search on your guy will probably turn up that place. It isn't necessary to have an article dedicated to him. We need to have some kind of concept of an "index". Encyclopedias have them. Redirect pages don't quite work the same way. It shouldn't be necessary to keep proliferating one-fact articles, when all we really need is the ability to index mentions of people and things in other articles. --BM 22:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 00:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Jonathunder 04:11, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
- Delete This fellow is not notable. Granted, his circumstances might be exceptional, but that does not merit his having an entry by himself. Rather, he should be included in an article discussing the sort of occurance he is allegedly known for. Ghandi is notable. Mandella is notable. Jimmy boy here, is not.--BenWilson 17:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable on his own to warrant having his own article. If his main claim to fame is that particluar incident I dont see why it can't be written as a paragraph within Journalistic ethics. Megan1967 05:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As others have said, the incident is notable, the person is not. Merge the information to Journalistic ethics or Freedom of the press or some-such article. — Asbestos | Talk 15:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable because of the incident. Gamaliel 21:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, unless this is proved false. What is said here seems sufficient to establish notability. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:35, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable controversy. I believe there's a federal bill winding its way through Congress prompted by this guy's situation. — Gwalla | Talk 04:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Overwhelmingly strong keep. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 18:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.