Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Passan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff Passan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable internet journalist. Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cited numerously by other sources,[1] award-winning, etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The hits you found are mostly articles he's written, not cites he's sourced. I can't find any source which establishes that he's won a specific award, other than his own bio, which just says "award-winning". -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Actually, not really. If you look closely at the sources you'll see that a number of them are other articles that quote Passan, the clear mark of a notable journalist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The hits you found are mostly articles he's written, not cites he's sourced. I can't find any source which establishes that he's won a specific award, other than his own bio, which just says "award-winning". -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. multiple sources in the article and above attest to notability. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 10:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 10:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article contains no sources. A bibliography disguised as a reference section certainly doesn't count. No source, let alone even a name, for alleged award. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a long shot. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now contains sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still no source to actually support the claim of having won an award - just what is most likely a self written bio blurb. The book is an actual ref, but Passan is mentioned in passing without enough details about the person to sustain a viable BLP. I still don't think he passes the GNG. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yahoo is as realiable as sources come these days. If they say he's award winning, we can trust that he's award winning. As for the book, "mentioned in passing" is putting it way too lightly. He was discussed over a number of pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still no source to actually support the claim of having won an award - just what is most likely a self written bio blurb. The book is an actual ref, but Passan is mentioned in passing without enough details about the person to sustain a viable BLP. I still don't think he passes the GNG. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now contains sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum.: Numerous sources have been added to the article after it was nominated and the two delete !votes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Tzu Zha Men. Happy to view Yahoo as an RS for his award.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2010 (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.