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. While the opinions of the article subject can be taken into consideration during an AFD, the consensus here is fairly clear that Schwada meets the minimum requirements for inclusion. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Schwada (journalist)[edit]

John Schwada (journalist) (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)

Subject of this article got one local award and a nice mention in a local column about his work, but he does not seem to have garnered enough attention from neutral, reliable sources to have an article in Wikipedia. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep A quick glance at the article shows that this is obviously a notable journalist. Emmy Awards, LA Press Club awards, positions with top American news agencies, and more. I'm concerned about all the AFDs that are increasingly happening simply because someone else out there doesn't like them. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is nothing much coming up, no reliable sources, no major awards, fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Other than the local award and newspaper column brought up above, I could find nothing at all that even mentioned the guy as a subject. Honestly, If I looked I could probably find 2 or 3 comparable sources that talk about myself, and there is absolutely no way that I am notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Darthkayak (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of the new sources in the past few weeks I now agree he's notable enough to pass GNG. Yngvadottir has made the article quite good, and avoided a potential pitfall: I think too much focus on the non-renewal thing would have been undue, but the majority of the non-award sources are solely about that. The subject's BLP deletion request is giving me pause now. He might be trying to keep a low-profile, and that's why I haven't changed my comment to Keep. I don't know how to feel and am pretty new to AFD discussion, so I've struck-out my above comment. As this guy isn't a well-known public figure of general interest like Anderson Cooper, I think we should be judicious, but would completely support keeping the article if consensus goes that way. Darthkayak (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note the subject of the article has requested that the page be deleted (see ticket:2020021710000097). Should it come to a close decision, their preference should probably be taken into consideration. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two thoughts. One, the speedy keep vote suggests that this report was started by someone "out there (who) doesn't like them," which is a remarkable assumption of bad faith. Two, the subject tried multiple times to own the article for self-promotional purposes, then vandalized it maliciously when they were thwarted, and was finally blocked. That behavior may be relevant when considering their request. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment II There's also reason to ask whether Mr. Schwada's entertaining personal grievances, including [1], go beyond original research and violate WP:BLP guidelines. Regardless of whether the article stays, rev/deletion may be in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The volume of the guy's awards, plus the ruckus in the press over the non-renewal of his contract, make him notable in my judgement, and I found enough about his life and career to reshape the article into a minimal biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the RS and the awards (Emmy Awards, LA Press Club awards, and positions with top American news agencies). WP:ANYBIO at the least. I find that he meets WP:GNG and it really is not his call whether he gets included in an encyclopedia. FYI: We would not consider deleting Anderson Cooper's bio based on his request. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Streisand effect. If he were a child actor, or crime victim, i would urge us to delete this article, but he's a grown man. Bearian (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearian, genuinely curious, how does Streisand make this a keep? Primefac (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Allegedly, the subject has brought attention to himself by editing his own article, with the implication that he thinks he himself is notable. Now that his edits have been reverted, he wants to remove his article and argue that he is not notable. Wikipedia does not work that way: once notable, a person is always notable. Barbra Streisand wanted photos of her seaside house to be private, but in complaining about it, she created publicity for the same. In cases of children, such as actors and crime victims, we tend to err on the side of deleting the article out of concern for children's privacy rights. In only one instance in the past 13 years has an adult subject successfully appealed to JimboWales that he was not notable, after seeking media attention to make himself a public figure because he wanted to stroke his own ego. That resulted in two nasty AfDs in the span of as many weeks, resulting in a terrible exception that powerful school superintendents are not notable. (In the cases of widespread bullying and pandemics, they literally have the power of life and death over children.) Other than the one case, the consensus of the Wikipedian community has been to include an adult if they are in fact notable, only redacting personal information such as date of birth and links personal web pages. In one case, a female professor was being stalked and harassed online, and we still kept her article; in another case, we kept an article for an MSNBC legal commentator unprotected after he in person and in public begged me to fix the vandalism. I can link those cases if you insist, but that would bring them undue attention again. Deleting this article would create a terrible precedent, allowing people to game the system. It would also require us to revisit past precedents, and I will demand that many more Wikipedians voice their opinion. Precedents at WP:OUTCOMES are important so that our readers, and ultimately the taxpayers who subsidize us, know what are general rules for inclusion might be. Precedents create predictability. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I do know what the Streisand effect is... I was asking why it was relevant in this case. Regardless of whether the article's subject has been editing the page, or whether they are interested in having it deleted, there has been no public outcry from Schwada to have the page deleted, and your analogy is moot. If a subject is not notable, they are not notable, which is why we're at AFD and not just deleting it because he complained. Primefac (talk)

  I just stated one reason, and I try not to merely pile on by repeating what others say, but if you insist... A second reason to keep is exactly what Lightburst wrote: He passes based on GNG, ANYBODY, RS, and for the significant coverage about the person. Journalists and talking heads are not automatically notable, but the drama about his leaving Fox was reported on widely and over a period of time longer than a single news cycle. For example, in 2008 his career was already notable. When he was let go in 2011, it made national news. In 2015 and 2016, he made the news as a spokesperson for political groups. In late 2016 he inserted himself into controversy again (pardon the pun) as spokesperson for Prop 60 and in 2018 as a lobbyist. In searches online, I found over 600 news articles where he's mentioned prominently some are passing mentions, but many are mostly about him. The claims that he's a private person reminds me of the inveterate socialite protesting vainly that all she does is charity work and somehow suffers through party after party. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2020 (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.