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. Kurykh (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Coffey[edit]

Claudia Coffey (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)

Bio of non-notable American newscaster. Contested PROD based on winning a regional Emmy, which per long time consensus is not sufficient to establish notability. Only sources on page are IMDB links. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone have a link to the long-time consensus on regional Emmys not being sufficient for establishing notability? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local television journalists at the individual- station level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they get articles only if and when they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG. And regardless of the notability or non-notability of winning a regional Emmy, even winning a national Emmy would not confer an exemption from having to be reliably sourced over GNG; the article would still have to be sourced to actually get kept, and IMDb is not sourcing. I'm willing to reconsider this if proper referencing can be shown, but nothing here exempts her from having to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Aren't we supposed to look for reliable sources that exist, not just those in the article at the present? Are you confirming that you found no reliable sources to back up notability? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable local television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only real potential hook for notability is her Emmy, and despite whatever unproven guideline/consensus around a regional Emmy not being a useful notability hook is referred to above (if you can't link it, it doesn't exist), it is reasonable to search for RS coverage per GNG surrounding an impressive award like this. So, I did this search, and in terms of any deep coverage beyond mentions, I turned up dry. But if anyone else can turn up something, I'm willing to reconsider my !vote. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  I had no trouble in finding in-depth coverage such as [1] [2], and [3].  I didn't look further because with the raw vote count here, the closer will either reject all of the deletes as without evidence, or count them up without regard to evidence.  On-air personalities gain attention directly from the public, which goes directly to Wikipedia's understanding of notability as attention from the world at large.  Like other evidence, a regional Emmy shows attention to the topic by the world at large.  Also note that there are references in the article not specifically identified as citations, such as Louisville Business First and Louisville Magazine.  That leaves a lot of uncited material in the article that might require cuts or research to cite, but a stub would have value to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  All three of those linked sources are minor media and local to the subject's hometown. I'm very open-minded to in-depth coverage being unearthed on the subject, but I will need to see non-local and more substantial media. Not WP:GNG at this point. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-local", and "more substantial media" are not a part of GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to [4], there was a Coffey profile in the Courier Journal dated 20 February 2006 while she was in Washington, DC.  The URL cited in the article doesn't work, which is not surprising since the Courier maintains a paywall.  The URL is [5].  The source includes one quote from the article, that "CBS Newspath correspondent" is the "best job in the world".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The local sources aren't enough to raise it to meet WP:GNG in my opinion because they are routine coverage in local sources. An announcement by a local media organization of who is going to be hosting the news being covered by local news papers shouldn't automatically grant one inclusion in Wikipedia. Common sense needs to apply here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (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.