Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Whelan (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   delete. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordan Whelan (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a television and radio producer with no strong claim of notability that would get him past WP:NMEDIA — and relying almost entirely on primary and namecheck sources, with the few sources that are substantively about him not being sufficient in number to give him a WP:GNG pass. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be significantly beefed up, but this as written ain't enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Note also that User:Stevens6668 attempted yesterday to remove the AFD template from the article and to simply blank this discussion entirely. The fact that a brand new editor with no prior contribution history honed straight in on those kinds of edits, as his first Wikipedia contributions ever, strongly implies conflict of interest to me — so this page and the article will need to be monitored in case they happen again. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep:- Source from Huffingtonpost, Toronto Star Newspapers, Yahoo Finance and others seems to be notable. While googling for the subject, it was clear that he had press coverage and a National Newspaper column. He is producer of first crowdfunding television show in North America seems to pass notability. My vote will be keep for him.Ireneshih (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post: article written by the subject himself, thus a primary source which cannot confer notability. Toronto Star: brief article which doesn't verify anything that would get him past WP:NMEDIA at all (producing a local TV show not being a claim that satisfies that.) Yahoo Finance: reprint of a press release from his own company, distributed via Canada NewsWire — thus a primary source which cannot confer notability. Number of sources in this article which actually get him past GNG as written: zero, because every last one of them is primary sourcing and/or insubstantial coverage that doesn't support any claim of notability that would satisfy any of our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Ireneshih's comments compel me to believe that there's plenty out there that make him notable, it's just up to one of us to actually include that in there. Her comments alone show that he passes WP:BASIC  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see any evidence of notability, and would need to see some before I change that delete opinion. He is a graduate. So what? Executive producer of a local radio talk show. So what? Is there anything notable in his writing - nothing in the sources suggest there is. Does one crowdfunding make an "entrepreneur"? And if so, so what? It is not as if he initiated the first ever crowdfunded TV program. There is no suggestion of notability in the resulting program, only in its funding route. The self-penned things in the sources do not count towards notability, nor does suffering from trichotillomania (proof I actually did look at the cited sources!), or being a member of a monthly underwear club (what on earth is that "source" in the article for? ), or being a "quintessential millenial living in downtown Toronto who will do just about anything to entertain his readers" (even if he does it in new underwear). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - My vote is for a keep but I have to agree with a lot with what is said above. A lot needs to be choppped out. The graduate and local radio talk show additional is meaningless and non notable. However, the notability does exist with the television show as it is the first crowdfunding TV show in Canada and part of a booming phenom. 40+ secondary sources on this. The connection with Rob Ford could also give it a stick.

The column is actually the more notable item as it had mass syndicated across Canada along with radio/tv appearances by the author to promote- featured at Toronto Fashion Week Radio  TV

This should be two-three sentences tops sfichner66 (talk) 24:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - we have very high standards for writers and producers, and he doesn't make the grade. There are often multiple writers for TV and radio shows, and producers are, to be blunt, run of the mill: anybody who raises money for (or gives to fund) a TV show, film, or play is technically a "producer". On the other hand, actors, directors, artists, and editors are almost always professionals, or aim to be some day.  While's he's in or wrote many well-sourced articles, there is no significant coverage of him as a subject in any reliable source, so he fails our basic test. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2014 (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.