Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Cramer

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. ✗plicit 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Cramer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The subject is described as a serial entrepreneur, but he hasn't founded anything other than Love For Our Elders, which is nominated by me for deletion. Nothing significant is found to be done by him nor the coverage are sufficient to consider him notable. The subject's notability is highly if not completely dependent on Love For Our Elders. Doesn't qualify WP:BLP as notability isn't inherited. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as Mamushir suggested. Technically a series of length 1 is still a series. But let let him increase the length of his series of organizations, then build a page. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Roman Spa said, both myself and user DGG misread social as serial, perhaps due to priming. But still, although this is a nice young man with good intentions, he is far from notable. By the way the article on priming that I mentioned is mostly incorrect, so please see a better source on that topic, if interested. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if Love for our elders were notable , he's still not notable . Serial in serial entrepreneur means >1, as in serial murderer. I think using it for 2 would be a stretch, but I doubt there's a fixed boundary. And "serial entrepreneur" in the lede is the sort of description that makes me immediately think of whether to use AfD or G11 for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Does the misreading change your vote? Ode+Joy (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not yet notable in anycase. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable secondary, independent sources on him, like the profiling in Kveller, the HARRY show, E! News, etc. are enough for notability to pass WP:GNG. Social entrepreneur is different than serial, and he is the former. Fairly easy to find other significant sources, like Good Day LA and CNN, and absence on the page doesn't detract from notability. Jollzar450 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think that this nomination is based on a misreading: the person in question is described not as a 'serial' entrepreneur, but as a 'social' entrepreneur. RomanSpa (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. But does not change the outcome. Thanks.Ode+Joy (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Seems fairly promotional. KidAd • SPEAK 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletedoes not have sustained publicity. WP:SUSTAINED --Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2021 (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.