Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Brown's Journal

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Endymion.12 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Brown's Journal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to fail notability requirements. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious WP:GNG pass. WP:BEFORE should include Google Books searches, which would find, for example, extensive coverage of this specific program starting on page 117 of Black Power TV by Devorah Heitner (Duke University Press, 2013, [1]), also an archived 2-page article (followed by an ad for the program!) from Jet (February 15, 1979) [2]. Elsewhere there is Cottman, Michael H. (19 February 1989). "Do Unto Yourself: 'Tony Brown's Journal' preaches self-determination". Newsday. p. 81. I stopped looking after seeing numerous hits in newspaper databases covering the period. It's an older notability claim, but it checks out. Article could use some improvement, but it has the sources available, so deletion solves absolutely nothing here. Bakazaka (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very definition of notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as with the AfD for Brown, this subjects encyclopedic nature speaks for itself. Being the at the time longest running black affairs show on TV and carried throughout the US on PBS seems more than sufficient to establish that the subject is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources support notability, and host is patently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Endymion.12, Perhaps you already know this, but while it is good that many article are improved after being brought to AfD, it is not required that an article be improved in order to be kept. Also, when Nom is persuaded that sources do exist to establish notability, Nom is permitted to say that and withdraw from the discussion, permitting the page to be kept as long as there are no votes to delete. It is a sort of courtesy to do so. This happens a lot because to err is human.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory I am aware—it was a suggestion to improve the article using the references available here. I will withdraw my nomination now. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2019 (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.