Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Weinberg (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Scott Weinberg
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd come across this as a G4 speedy, but it didn't entirely qualify since the article was deleted per author request rather than through the AfD. The current version also has a slightly larger amount of info than the prior version did, so I'm taking this back to AfD since it doesn't fit cleanly under G4.

There's really no coverage out there for Weinberg and neither his time served in office or his sports career meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY or WP:NPOLITICIAN. None of his writings seem to have gained coverage in places Wikipedia would consider reliable, so he would not qualify for WP:CREATIVE either.

I don't think you should delete this entry, Weinberg is an important voice in Jewish-Canadian literature and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.223.160 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I need to note that this is not the same Scott Weinberg who works as a reviewer and is active in film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

He has received notable coverage for his writing in Catholic News Service and The Boston Pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.223.160 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT, non-notable, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. He does not meet any of the relevant subject-specific notability guidelines (WP:NSPORT, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and WP:CREATIVE), and has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment-not sure if he should be deleted or not-but if he is, probably should salt this and Scott Weinberg (soccer) Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show proof of this coverage? Just saying that it exists isn't enough - you have to show where his work has been covered, as not all media outlets will be considered independent, reliable sources on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Catholic News Service, and the Boston Pilot are very reliable sources. The article includes citations for these including a review by theologian Eugene Fisher, a peer-reviewed scholar. The citations make it self evident that the author has been covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.185.58 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 14 May 2016‎
 * Whoah. Please be careful on how you write things. The way you wrote this gave off the impression that I wrote this and I didn't. This might have been unintentional, but be careful since this can be seen as tampering with comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and SALT - In addition to failing GNG, NFOOTY, NPOLITICIAN, and CREATIVE, there is a high potential for COI and this being autobiographical as User:Sweinberg8 created the article. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sweinberg8 is not creating an autobiography. Same last name but no relation. —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete and Salt as there's still nothing convincing of any applicable notability here. SwisterTwister   talk  06:02, 17 May 2016 (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.