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. joe decker ^talk 17:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Madan[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Do not believe being a news reporter alone establishes notability. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N/WP:JOURNALIST. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As is so often the case with journalists, this article resembles nothing so much as a thinly-veiled rewrite of his staff profile on the website of his own employer. But that would be primary sourcing, and on a ProQuest search I'm not able to find any evidence that he's been the subject of enough coverage to get over WP:GNG — of the 24 hits I get on his name, he's the bylined author of 18 of them, and merely has his existence namechecked in all six of the remainders, which is not how a journalist gets a Wikipedia article. Journalists (especially the television kind) often suffer from this problem: they seem like they should be notable, because you're seeing their face and hearing their name every time you watch the news, but short of being the anchor they're usually not the subject of enough media coverage to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia's needs. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he may have worked with notable groups and news broadcasts but there is still nothing actually suggestive for the needed solid independent notability with examining the article finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 17 June 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.