Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarvis Jay Masters
- 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. Secret account 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Jarvis Jay Masters (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)
As a criminal, fails WP:PERP; as an author, fails WP:AUTHOR; and the crime fails WP:EVENT. I've tried to make this one work for a few years now (contesting a speedy deletion in 2011), but the only reliable source I can find is the LA Times article. Location (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- weak keep its not much but the source proves notability. one source is better than none.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, the LA Times article is a three sentence blurb stating that three San Quentin inmates had been charged in the death of a guard.[1] This would typically fail WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Not even close to meeting GNG or BIO in my opinion. The article provides several references, some under References, some under External Links; however, only two are from Independent Reliable Sources. The item from the LA Times is what we call a "news brief" - a bare-bones paragraph about the conviction of this guy and several other people. One item from the San Francisco Chronicle is actually about him, written skeptically by a regular Chronicle writer. That's it. The other item from the San Francisco Chronicle is a book review "special to the Chronicle", meaning not by a regular staff writer, and is basically a POV piece from someone who is convinced and states as fact that the subject is innocent. The rest of the references are not from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete concur with above --Mevagiss (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I see no harm in keeping this. Opportunities to achieve notability while in prison are few, and having written two books is in itself an accomplishment. He can't exactly do book signings or go on talk shows, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there aren't many third-party resources about him. I find it listed in local public library catalogs (I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area, so the book may be locally relevant). LaMona (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: If the best the keep proponents can manage is "There's ONE source anyway" and "I see no harm in keeping this," this is a slam dunk delete. Fails the GNG, that's all she wrote. The answer to a prison inmate not being able get SIGCOV isn't "Aw, he ought to get an article anyway." It's "He's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Nha Trang Allons! 21:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.