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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rates[edit]

Scott Rates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist. All refs press releases, WP:ROUTINE, affiliated sources, or minor in passing references mentioning him as the reporter on the scene. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination calls this topic an event.  This topic is not an event.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the nomination has made an attempt to determine either wp:notability or the alternatives to deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You argue that every journalist is inherently notable even though the only coverage of them is WP:ROUTINE job change announcements? And I note while you chose to dig into my background, you neglected to notice that the author of the article has a major COI with the subject of this article ResultingConstant (talk) 14:23, 27 August 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.