Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Zand

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. Daniel (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Zand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

He fails WP:JOURNALIST and general notability. The article is a reference bomb of LinkedIn and other primary sources, which suggest material was lacking to get the article out there in the first place. I have evaluated all the source and found lack of notability and/or reliability, which suggest this is a run-of-the-mill journalist, not someone that stands out in his profession (see WP:JOURNALIST). Notability is not inherit from him being boyfriend of higher-profile journalist or working at BBC. Page created by Tommskdas, who was checked for a block

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Based on the source assessment table, there is no notability given. I can't find much more. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This I guess in HuffPost is ok [1], it doesn't really talk about the person, only talking about the Trump travel ban and how it affected him. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that is the main problem I find. Articles are about the documentary premiere, his wife, him getting stuck at border but never about him. So the article was left to use LinkedIn and interviews to make his biography. So this suggest overall this person is not suitable for a biography. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete especially with the details of every source given to see if they are reliable enough for inclusion. Turns out that none are, so article cannot be retained. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is borderline. I've gone through the same thought process as nom but lean on the side of deeming the interviews by RTS and Arizona Wildcat admissible as independent secondary sources that confer notability. Deryck C. 11:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. The Arizona Daily Wildcat is a student newspaper, so it would be a weak source to show notability (WP:RSSM). The only material in the RTS interview (that is not an answer by Zand):

  That's why I think this is pretty weak to warrant a biography of him on here. Both are WP:INTERVIEWS, which usually don't count for notability in AfDs. And RTS source is published by the same people that gave him an award, so one can say is not independent. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2023 (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.