Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Street (3rd nomination)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Street

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

I initially placed a Notability tag on this page earlier this month during which time I tried to find additional material that would justify its existence. Neither my searches nor the Notability tag elicited any new information. The page exists as a biographical under a stub for journalists. Wiki guidelines are clear on this, for journalists to be included the following criteria need to be met, to which I have provided responses in short in CAPITALS:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. NO
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. CLEARLY NOT
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ABSOLUTELY NOT
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. CLEARLY NOT

In addition the references to the awards which seem to be an additional basis of notability are thinly disguised puff pieces. Most notably, and I changed this today, the reference to an Order of Australia commendation turns out to be a high school level Order of Australia Association NSW Branch certificate.

Overall this former journalist (no information on the web as to what he is now) and former adviser (note, not senior adviser, chief of staff or otherwise notable political position) has no place in an Encyclopedia. As such this page should be Deleted. --Ddragovic (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have no opinion on the notability if this person, but you're assertion above isn't quite correct.The notability guidelines are just that, guidelines, not fixed rules. Read the sections above the subject specific guidelines, especially "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below" & "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The-Pope (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have little time for a substantive comment but agree with Ddragovic. Delete Phd8511 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the earlier arguments for keeping the page and found the reasons for keeping the page often misleading. Here is one argument in favour of keeping, "Street is a chief correspondent on Nine Network and is considered a top journalist in Australia. He is the 2009 winner of the National Press Club of Australia's annual award for contributions to journalism. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)." This is simply not true, Street is not nor was a chief correspondent as far as I can find anywhere and its misleading to state that he was a winner of the "National Press Club of Australia's annual award for contributions to journalism", instead he is the winner of an award, there are many, this one ($1,000 prize) being given to journalists in their first years i.e. junior journalists.--Ddragovic (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using the Google links above, there are no hits on Daniel Street as an aid/development adviser to Rudd nor as his time as a journalist. There are no news articles/videos free and legally available to state him as a core journalist in Australia. Even if he was, I fail to see how that is a requisite for being a dictionary article. There are no reports, free or gated, academic or government, that are published by him at all relating to media or aid and development. Even if that is so, why aren't other special advisers to other foreign and/or development ministers on Wikipedia? Finally, a picture search reveals no common face whatsoever. I fail to see why this is an article or a notable individual worthy of an article.Phd8511 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal for deletion. Non-notable. Bumble100bee (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I ask when the decision for this AfD will be made?Phd8511 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2013 (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.