- 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. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Jarid Manos (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)
No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - This subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficent coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- delete - No indication of either gng or any other notability.John from Idegon (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Umm, people, an AFD is about the wikipedia-notability of a topic, not about the current state of the article. I just added a bit. The subject is an interesting person, with numerous hits in a newspaper database of major papers. I've added a bit to the article. He is the subject of a number of interviews, such as one in respected though progressive journal Yes! (U.S. magazine). It is obvious that he is notable, in fact. And, AFD is not for cleanup, and I personally object to repeated nominations of articles where a nominator appears not to have performed wp:BEFORE, and, in all other similar cases, will not answer a direct question about whether wp:BEFORE was performed. Here is a direct question to the nominator: was wp:BEFORE performed? And to the delete-voters above, had you done any searching at all, or were you just commenting on the state of the article (which was deficient, i will grant)? --doncram 03:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The coverage mentioned by Doncram is verging on enough for an article. I also found this. A little more direct coverage of the subject rather than interviews would help, but I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on what's been found. It's not the worst stubby BLP I've ever seen. For some BLPs, interviews often are the only source about the subject's background, for example, the Time Out interview. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per improvements. -- GreenC 02:16, 1 August 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.