Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Zahm


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Jon Zahm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly non-notable subject and User:Jazahm likely the subject himself. DeleteAllTheThings (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are a few sources, but I'm not seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Makes no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NPOL (which does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on backroom consultants), and isn't sourced to nearly enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG instead — of the four sources here, #2 and #3 both just passingly namecheck his basic existence rather than providing any substantive coverage of him, and #4 is an invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. So #1 is the only one that counts for squat, but it still provides barely more than a blurb's worth of information about him personally — so it is not substantive enough to carry him over GNG all by itself. As usual, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody gains an entitlement to keep an article just because they exist, if the sourcing and substance just aren't there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he accomplishes something that actually satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion rule, but absolutely nothing written or sourced here does so as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2015 (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.