Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Engardio


 * 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. Consensus to delete. Sources have been provided to justify keep, but upon reviewing them I have to concur with Aoidh's description of each one and the fact that they do not provide WP:SIGCOV. TigerShark (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Joel Engardio

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

Per WP:PROMO. The article is written like a resume with mostly primary sources, whether from personal blog posts or columns that he has written in larger publications. (WP:JOURNALIST)

One film doesn't qualify him for WP:CREATIVE (I still need to evaluate its coverage as the page was created by the same author of this page) Unsuccessful runs for local elections doesn't qualify him for WP:POLITCIAN. BriefEdits (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Journalism, Religion,  and California. BriefEdits (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG met by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article:, , , . Article improvements, not deletion can address the other complaints (WP:NOTCLEANUP). ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Of the sources Kvng lists above, This is an opinion piece about a local level political race, it would be weird not to find that kind of coverage for a local race, and the scope of coverage must be considered. Overall it would contribute towards notability, but it certainly doesn't do much on its own. This is written by the article's subject. Not independent, doesn't contribute to notability in any way. This isn't trivial coverage, but it's an article about his documentary, not about him. Doesn't contribute to notability. This is another local-level opinion piece about a political race, but this one has even less substance than the first one. Doesn't contribute to notability. If this is the best coverage that we can find for the article's subject, then the article's subject just doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. Maybe it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, maybe not, but there's just not enough there. - Aoidh (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right to exclude the NPR piece. The Newsweek piece is about the documentary but also has significant coverage of the subject so does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not aware of "scope of coverage" requirements associated with biographies. The endorsements are local news but local to one the largest metropolitan areas in the US. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Scope of coverage is similar to depth; we're just looking for the amount of attention that reliable third parties have given to a particular subject (e.g. sentence vs. full article) While coverage from a major publication would definitely be more convincing of notability, I wouldn't say that coverage alone is enough for notability. The point I wanted to emphasize WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE was that while the subject's name may pop up in relation to the coverage of the political races that he has ran in or the one film that he has made, it's difficult to ascertain his notability outside of those articles proper. BriefEdits (talk) 09:24, 9 July 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.