Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Keith Moyer

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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Keith Moyer

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

This former newspaper executive and editor has held several high positions in the industry, however these achievements do not apparently rise to the level of WP:GNG; note coverage like this and this are press release-type publications by the subject and related parties. At any rate, The subject's corporate and journalistic activities do not seem to approach WP:ANYBIO. Note the unsupported claim that he oversaw coverage that won the award. Not quite like receiving it. His current professorship does not satisfy WP:PROFESSOR. The BLP is almost entirely unsourced, and I'm not finding much to work with. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We run into the fact that there are not — but should be — special notability guidelines for journalists. Publisher of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune should, theoretically, be a sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography, in the same way that Mr. Moyer serving to one term in the Minnesota State Legislature or appearing in one game playing Right Field for the Minnesota Twins would ensure his automatic inclusion. Here's the crux of the problem: journalists don't write about rival journalists. Journalists writing about their fellow journalists in their own publications are deemed "not independent." Wikipedia requires several instances of independent published output of journalists about a topic to merit inclusion. Therefore, it is unnaturally hard to source out articles ABOUT journalists. It's annoying. Ignore All Rules, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — That's the point: nobody tends to write about journalists and publishers who are not notable in their own field. There needs to be some sort of even application, I am convinced, but there's a good way to do it (widely recognized journalists/editors/publishers) and many bad ways to do it, including the proposition above (inherent notability for any chief editor? publisher? that way too many simply non-notable people in dying fields like regional print media). Journalists writing about people within their own publication are not independent, that's pretty simple. The crux Carrite identifies is that it's hard for journalists to be notable outside of Wiki standards at all. Plus, I'm afraid Carrite has imagined that we must find journalists writing about each other. Many books exist on notable journalists, and journalistic prizes and awards do exist. Both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are readily possible for truly outstanding journalists, so inherent notability isn't the answer. WP:IAR is a last resort and there is no reason to skip to it, and this is not a forum for reformulating policy. There's nothing outstanding about this subject. IAR should be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 18:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like saying "Only Oscar Winning actors are notable" or "Only Nobel Prize Winning economists are notable" — an artificially high standard. Being the publisher or editor of a major metropolitan daily newspaper SHOULD be sufficient career achievement and public profile to merit encyclopedic biography. IAR means "use common sense." Carrite (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hits NYT several times for various newspaper-related news stories. [1] inter alia. [2], [3] and [4] appear to me to show notability in his field. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One's about the sale (WP:1E) of his notable newspaper. He might be an expert, but these are tiny, passing mentions (deepest: 2 paragraphs in 395 pages). Not every expert is notable; there's little other than the sale on which to base biographic content. Otherwise it's a collection of not-inherently-notable positions (WP:RESUME) rather than a well-sourced biography. JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Subject was the publisher of a major newspaper and has coverage in the New York Times. So, he has enough notability to merit a brief wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need 'common sense' criteria for cases like this where standing policy is not yet adequate. I'd say this was notable enough.Squareanimal (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2012 (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.