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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Righ Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing Wikipedia notability criteria for journalists. As always, the notability of a journalist is not established by footnoting the article to sources in which he's the author of content about other things, it's established by footnoting the article to sources in which he's the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people -- but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the author, and the sole reference where he's the "subject" is a Twitter tweet rather than a reliable or notability-building source. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely fails WP:GNG per a source review and Bearcat's argument above. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am trying to give the right references, it's hard finding third-person articles on an active journalist.

  How is ABC, Global News and Jpost not good enough? What has a higher threshold of proof?

  Legit question Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, there is no ABC News source in the article. The source you've labelled as "ABC" comes from an individual television station, not from the national news division of the ABC network — those are two different things, and one does not automatically equal the other: KAKE is owned by a company called Lockwood Broadcast Group, not by ABC, and the fact that it's an ABC affiliate doesn't turn ABC into the creator of content on KAKE's website. As well, it is not journalistic content written by a professional journalist who works for that television station, and instead is explicitly labelled right under the headline as "Sponsored: Advertising Content", meaning it's not coverage being given to a podcast but a press release purchased by the podcaster to seek publicity. People do not get over our notability rules by distributing their own press releases, people get over our notability rules by having professional journalists write proper journalism about them.
  The problem with the Global News hits is that they don't represent coverage about Righ Knight; they're coverage of car accidents where Righ Knight is simply credited as the taker of a photograph of the accident. But again, what we're looking for is not "sources in which he's credited with taking a photograph of an incident that he wasn't personally involved in", what we're looking for is sources in which he is the subject of the article.
  And the Jerusalem Post footnote is, again, not coverage about Righ Knight — it is simply a directory of pieces where Righ Knight was the bylined author of coverage about other things, whereas I repeat yet again, we are looking for sources in which Righ Knight is the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people.
  You're simply not providing the kind of sourcing that is required to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I please get help writting it to better suit the guidelines please?

  I'd hate to see all this work get flushed Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here, no sourcing found for this person. Having an idea for a political party is fine, but no one has discussed it in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not finding anything notable when searching. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm mostly finding hits on really marginal news sites about the facebook groups he created. Nothing useful for notability purposes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I dont think ABC is marginal?

  https://www.kake.com/story/49204897/new-podcast-completely-destroys-narrative-around-modern-men Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite being a self-proclaimed "mogul" and "business magnate" at a couple of links provided in the article, Mr. Knight's left very light footprints on the internet, none of them reliable sources. According to this Commons file history he is likely the primary editor of this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the author of all the articles, see this one is some guy names chris on ABC

https://www.kake.com/story/49204897/new-podcast-completely-destroys-narrative-around-modern-men Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the criteria, isn't publication and talking about said publication in and of itself deem-able of noteworthiness? Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, that isn't ABC, and is a press release rather than GNG-building coverage. And again, we're not looking for verification that his work exists, we're looking for evidence that his work has been the subject of third-party coverage and analysis by other people to externally validate its significance. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (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.