Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kash Jackson


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Kash Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kash Jackson does not meet the notability requirements as stated by Notability_(people) Signed, User:Mpen320, talk (12:51 CT, 23 July 2017)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Article contains several reliable sources, some of them actually covering the subject in detail (and some passing mentions), enough to pass WP:BASIC, which is sufficient even if WP:POLITICIAN is not met. At the very least, it could be merged to the election's article, so deletion is not a viable alternative either way. Regards  So Why  12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, passes WP:GNG WP:BIO  Cllgbksr (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)otability
 * Keep Noteable enough and citations are diverse and secondary. Maugster (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The coverage in reliable sources is not evincing anywhere near as solid a GNG pass as claimed above. Of the eight references present here, two are YouTube videos which contribute zilch toward building a GNG pass; one (Free Thought Project) is an unreliable source; and one (Chicago Tribune) is campaign-related coverage that fails to support the preexisting notability necessary to get an unelected candiate for office into Wikipedia. That's fully half the sourcing decapitated right there. And of the four remaining reliable sources, he's substantively the subject of just one of them (CBS Denver) — all of the other three merely namecheck his existence as a bit player or soundbite-giver in coverage that's about someone or something other than him. This is not what it takes to pass GNG, not even close — I strongly suspect that some or all of the keep voters above merely eyeballed the number of sources without actually taking note of their quality at all, because there's only one source here that's both reliable and substantively about Kash Jackson. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Observer source is more than just a namecheck and so is the USA Today one. Here's another from Slate. WP:BASIC, unlike WP:GNG, says that [i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and I believe that this is the case here, even though I admit it's barely meeting that threshold. But barely meeting is sufficient and meeting WP:BASIC is enough even if WP:GNG is not met because WP:N says a subject is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [...] (emphasis added). Regards  So Why  13:38, 15 August 2017 (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.