Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Feith


 * 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. This discussion has been ongoing for two weeks, and in this time we have only one weak argument for delete. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, and so the clear outcome is keep. Given the length of time and no strong submission for the contrary, a consensus for keep is the only tenable answer. Closing as a relist is unlikely to benefit the discussion. Any editor who disagrees with my close is welcome to ping me at my UTP and request me to undo the closure - I honour all requests to do so without the need for DRV. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Greg Feith

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

The subject has been quoted lots of times, but doesn't appear to be the subject himself of reliable independent published sources. Google Books turns up a few pages of hits that say, "Greg Feith says..." or "Greg Feith, who works for the NTSB, believes..." but these are quotes by Feith about other events, not evidence of his own notability. I did not find significant discussion of Feith per se to qualify him for an article. The "Awards" section is unconvincing in this regard. A loose necktie (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television,  and Aviation.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. The consensus is to Keep this article but that isn't a correct decision if there is no significant coverage about him (despite his media profile). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notable aviation expert. Andre🚐 09:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject meets WP:GNG although the article is currently in poor shape. On May 29, 1996, the South Florida Sun Sentinel had an in-depth article about Feith, "Meet 'the Dick Tracy' of plane crashes'", page E1  and in 2019 there was non-trivial coverage of him in the "CRASH EXPERT GREG FEITH SLAMS CRITICS OF 737 MAX CERTIFICATION PROCESS" article at airlineratings.com website..  There are others, but I stopped looking at this point.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete He has appeared frequently on news shows as an aviation expert, mainly discussing airline crashes. (I found > 20 references to Today show, NBC, and others, searching Ebsco) A NYT article calls him: "Greg Feith, the telegenic investigator who was dubbed the Mud Stud by some in the media when he was handling the Valujet crash in the Everglades, was profiled in several articles." At the time he was an investigator with NTSB. I admit that I wasn't able to find any good sources about him and most of the news sources are him discussing aviation problems with the host. If anyone can show that he meets WP:ANYBIO 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;"), then I will change my !vote to keep. I'm just not sure what evidence there is for that. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP He is a notable expert "detective" with plane crashes.  There are articles in Newspapers.com.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notable aviation expert. Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * comment another tough one, I get hits where he's commenting on various airline accidents, but nothing about him as a person. Even in GScholar I only get about a half dozen hits, where he talks about xyz accident that happened. I'd be willing to give it a pass, seems notable in his field of work but little proof found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment added citations about his personal life and and a New York Times story that says that he was profiled in news stories. WP:NEXT Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I found sufficient information on his personal life and profile.   The New York Times story indicates that there is more.  It appears that he turned down presence in the press to protect his privacy and personal life and focussed on his work.Kleebis007 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a tough one. Although he gets passing mention in articles of New York Times and Washington Post but it still somehow shows that he's notable because getting mentions in articles published in highly notable news channels is not easy unless you are notable person. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.