Talk:James Campbell (journalist)

Notability

Is Wikipedia going to have an entry for every Herald Sun journo who's won a media award?

I doubt very much that Campbell is sufficiently notable to qualify for a Wikipedia entry. Garth M (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I also note that there are no sources in the article independent of the subject explaining why he's worthy of a WP biography. (It'll be interesting to see if the supposedly neutral Brandonfarris now goes spends a significant amount of time trying to find some.) Garth M (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

List of selected stories that's bigger than the biographical details included

Campbell might feel that his Age and Gobbo stories were so important they belong in Wikipedia, but there's no independent verification of that. Garth M (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

After making the above point, BrandonFarris then going and CREATING an article on his Age story and editing the Gobbo article does not resolve this concern. Garth M (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only one editor who's added this material, seems suspiciously POV

Is editor BrandonFarris associated with the subject? Seems very likely. Garth M (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Silent edits by Brandonfarris

Brandonfarris keeps adding original and unsourced material boosting the subject of this article, and restoring it if deleted, without reference to the talkpage. Again I ask, is Brandonfarris the subject of the article or associated with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

The article is now reasonably comprehensive and encyclopedic. It should be protected from those who seek to add completely unsupported tags in what seems to me to be thinly disguised vandalism. It should be noted the same user engaged in POV pushing on the Andrew Landeryou and other articles is similarly engaged here. Their agenda is obvious but beyond that, the unjustified removal of well-sourced material on the subject is not good for Wikipedia and is also vandalistic in nature.

I don't know or care what the connection is between the subject and the user pushing an agenda, it doesn't matter, what they're doing speaks for itself and should be rejected. I will continue to revert edits that are not much more than vandalism and unjustified deletion of material. --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The POV pushing is obvious, and it's from Brandonfarris. Material that is not encyclopaedic should be removed. Brandonfarris refuses to engage in the points made above.

This reads like the Herald Sun journo's CV, not a neutral bio. Garth M (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

The improperly conceived deletion notion falls because 1) the user proposing it appears to have an ominously close connection to the subject (what that is I don't know), 2) the user has failed to explain his claims that the subject isn't notable when the article is full of sources suggesting otherwise, 3) the user has failed to explain what POV there might be in the article and 4) the user has failed to create a deletion page discussion so that it could be resolved. The article describes a prominent Melbourne journalist, it's a new article but he's certainly not new on the scene. I will continue to remove tags that are nothing more than vandalism. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I have no connection with the subject.

2. Brandonfarris refuses to address the concerns about notability on the talk page above. In particular, no neutral sources as to the subject's notability.

3. The POV is clear - for example, repeatedly adding the POV but unsourced word "prestigious" to the subject's award.

4. That's true - I'll figure out how to do it.

Brandonfarris should be stopped from his reverts. They are essentially vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Winning a Quill is a neutral source. The user has a pattern of editing articles in which he has a connection, initially denied, then admitted. This is probably the case here.

For example, a Quill award is described as prestigious by the Law Institute of Victoria[1] on Rebecca Maddern's article here and by the Melbourne Press Club itself.[2] I don't think it's necessary to put those links next to the word prestigious in the article but the fact they were so easily found when the user persisted in a manic deletion of the word 'prestigious' because he doesn't like the subject is highly revealing of what's going on here generally. --Brandonfarris (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Describing the award as 'prestigious' is not a neutral statement. The LIV describes it as prestigious because they won one of the awards; the MPC obviously describe it as prestigious because they make the awards. In my view, the word 'prestigious' should not be included in an encyclopaedic article like this one, unless there is strong independent evidence for it. Sionk (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Winning a Quill is not a neutral source to the subject being notable. Plenty of people have won Quills but do not have WP entries.

As for my edits - I have no connection with the subject. Does Brandonfarris? I note Brandonfarris keeps ignoring the question. Garth M (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

anonymous IP edits

...and now there's an anonymous IP restoring Brandonfarris's material. Garth M (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems all the users here are anonymous but their contributions should all be NPOV. I have improved the descriptions of the "controversies" involving the subject. --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't. All you've done is add criticism of some of those stories from media commentators from rival publications. Hardly makes them more notable.

Journalists write stories every week. They're not suddenly notable just because another journalist suggests that they're a beatup.

There is still no neutral, independent source for the claim that Campbell is more notable than any other Herald Sun journo who'd won a Quill award, most of whom are not in Wikipedia. Garth M (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Campbell's work features prominently in the best-selling Sunday newspaper in Australia. In addition, his work is frequently referred to in other publications. In addition, he wins awards. If he's not notable then why is supposed blogger Andrew Landeryou notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Consistent standards ought be applied. But that's not the issue here anyway, that's being discussed on the deletion page. What's happening on this article is that while it's being considered for deletion, large tracts of the article are being deleted or blanked, making a serious consideration of it very difficult and meaning the edits responsible are little more than vandalism. Accordingly, I shall restore this material, while deletion is being considered. --Brandonfarris (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a WP page for every Herald Sun journo with a column. The fact that Campbell has been criticised for beatups doesn't make him notable. And there's one award you've cited, which again has not previously qualified recipients for a WP entry. (It may well be the case that there shouldn't be a page for Landeryou either, although his main claim to fame isn't his blog, it's the scandal involving the Melbourne University Student Union liquidation.)

The material you are adding on Campbell's Gobbo and Age attack pieces is not encyclopaedic. Any editors checking the issue of deletion can see them in the history, but they remain unencyclopaedic and do not make the subject notable.

Kudos in how hard you're working to try to get this... uh, independent and neutral biography of Campbell over the line, though. Garth M (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism of this article should have this user banned immediately. --Brandonfarris (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anybody is acting in bad faith with this article, though I do have reservations that too much time is being spent in discussions on the editors and not enough on the article. This is a content dispute, and if either side thinks a party on the other side should be blocked, be careful that the request doesn't come back to hit you as well. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. This Discussion page should be used to discuss the content of the article, not make wild guesses about the identity or the motives of other editors. There's also the 'Don't bite the newbies' adage to bear in mind. Some new editors have a passion for a subject area, which doesn't always mean they have evil intentions :) Sionk (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

List of stories not encyclopaedic

Obviously it's not the point of Wikipedia to list every story a journalist has worked on.

The Jeremy Rapke story won an award, and should be included.

I can't see anything from a third party indicating that the Gobbo and Age stories are notable. News Ltd is the only media organisation that's running the Age story, and it's fairly obvious what its interest is in doing that. The Gobbo story was that she'd been charged with drug possession as a teenager twenty years ago, which I'd suggest is the very definition of a beatup.

I am going to remove the paragraphs on the Gobbo and Age stories for that reason. Please do not restore them without addressing these concerns, here. Garth M (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy

@Garth M: I think I'm going to decline this and ask that you take this to AfD. There is an assertion of notability here via the award and for working for various publications, but I don't know that it's really strong enough to warrant a keep. The AfD back in 2011 was divided, so I'm concerned that a speedy deletion under these circumstances would probably be seen as controversial. Guidelines and AfD editors have become more strict since 2011, so it's possible that this could get deleted at AfD this time around. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've declined this. This would be best brought through AfD just in case, because if this was ever contested they'd have a pretty good argument to have it restored, given that he's worked for notable places and won a minor award. I'm not saying that these are enough to pass notability guidelines as a whole, just that they're enough to where someone could likely successfully argue at DRV that he met speedy criteria since there is an assertion of notability - the only true criteria for passing A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)