Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Schultz

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Schultz

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject is non-notable, one source is the bio on his website, two are routine coverage of new shows on Animal Planet, which themselves do not have articles, so no plausible redirect. Other activities are unencyclopedic. Jdcooper (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, profiled in the NY Times and by AOL. WP:NTEMP applies. Also hosted a TV show on Animal Planet.[1] Park3r (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The "profile" in the NY Times is a review of a TV show he appeared on. And the TV show on Animal Planet doesn't have an article. If anything here should have an article, it should be the TV show. Jdcooper (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There is significant coverage of the subject in the Times. The article does not have to be about the subject to qualify as supporting the notability of the subject.
  Sure, maybe the show deserves an article but that doesn't mean the host shouldn't. Articles appear on Wikipedia in the order that volunteers write them not necessarily in order of importance or notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News search indicates this meets WP:GNG. Here are some additional sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] ~Kvng (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, happy to withdraw my nomination. Thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - There are no notable sources talking about the subject in the article. Also, the article has remained a stub for more than 10 years. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the sources provided by User:Kvng are not mainstream coverage. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain yourself. For instance, the Las Vegas Sun is not notable? It is not mainstream? Please point to the policy or guideline that explain that reliable sources must be notable. Please point to the policy or guideline disallowing stubs. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem to be minor local newspapers, not Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, which I think does not do favor to the notability of the subject. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there's lots of "sources" at the page you link to which are completely unacceptable. Please read our policies and guidelines a little better, starting with WP:RS. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is a non-exhaustive list. It says so at the start of the page. It includes reliable and non-reliable sources. The absence of a source on that page doesn't make it non-reliable. Park3r (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after nomination withdrawal (and the comment that led to it). Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:40, 11 May 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.