Talk:John A. Adam (journalist)

This page was proposed for deletion by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) on 12 November 2020.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Claim of significance?

While I'm sure Mr. Adam is an accomplished writer, this bio doesn't appear to meet the notability threshhold for a Wikipedia article. I see that Wikidata has a pretty fleshed-out entry, which is probably more appropriate. Are there further claims to notability that haven't been mentioned in this article? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and found nothing that met any of the notability requirements. Mollifiednow (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed deletion, and DGG declined it, on the basis of the awards. I agree that the awards appear important. Unfortunately, nothing else in the article apart from the awards has a reference, and the awards are only mentioned in passing in the article cited. I have done a bit of searching and found nothing (though there's a mathematician of the same name who appears to have a pretty strong claim to notability himself). I think this article could be brought to WP:AFD for a deletion discussion; or some research might yield some more sources, permitting a modest expansion; or we could just leave it. I don't really have a strong sense one way or another, IMO the parts that were furthest from Wikipedia's standards have been removed, so maybe that third option is the way to go. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, much appreciated! I usually stick to expanding stubs in my little corner of the Wikiverse ;-) and have only nominated one article for deletion. The article had information about 2 different people in the same biography, it took a lot of research to figure that one out. I appreciate you taking the time to taking a look. Best- Mollifiednow (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]