Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Winograd

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 redirect‎ to Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. I'm not seeing any actual arguments against redirection given the valid {{r from author}}, and am thus interpreting the "delete" votes as "does not meet inclusion criteria" and support for redirection. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Winograd

[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)

disputed redirect - not enough in-depth independent coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, United States of America, and California. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of the 22 cited sources, 14 are self-published contents (1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21); 6 have no or trivial mentions of the subject (2, 3, 5, 7, 16, 22); and two are interviews (11, 16). Searching for the subject online, I found a lot of times when he was mentioned in passing or just quoted once. In the rare cases where he did receive significant coverage, like in this Atlantic article, the content would read more like narratives than any objective reportings. Lacks sufficient coverage from RS and IS to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect article. Not enough reliable sources. Redirect to Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 4 sources, 3 don’t exist/work at all. The other one is an Amazon link. This clearly fails GNG. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:31, 4 June 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.