Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Meltzer (writer)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

David Meltzer (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗ plicit  05:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople,  and United States of America. DavidEfraim (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Only source for WP:SIGCOV would be the Forbes article, even with that it's a clear fail. QuietHere (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, a bad faith nom - receipient of two major awards, so meets WP:ANYBIO. Kevin Winzer (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nomination by a sock account.  Billets Mauves €500 07:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that the nominator is a sock isn't really relevant since a non-sock has presented a good-faith argument to delete, so we should look at the merits here. I don't think either of the listed awards are "well-known and significant" for purposes of WP:ANYBIO: the Ellis Island Medal of Honor has thousands of recipients, and the Variety "Sports Humanitarian of the Year" does not appear to be a noteworthy honor. The Forbes article linked above is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The remaining sources cited in the article all appear to be unreliable/non-independent or only passing mentions, and my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't turn up anything that is independent (not, e.g., an interview or press release), is reliable, and discusses Meltzer in detail. Not notable, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.