Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Landres (2nd 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Shawn Landres
AfDs for this article:


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

Not seeing the in-depth coverage about him needed to pass GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nomination merely states WP:GNG without reason per WP:JUSTAPOLICY, and I think further explanation and rationale is needed to justify deletion. In terms of why this article should be kept, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject must be published and present in order to demonstrate the ultimate element of notability: significant coverage. These appear to be present within the article because a number of the sources whilst perhaps not including the subject as the main topic of the article, do mention him in a way that is more than trivial. The sources appear reliable, a number of different news sites (including the wall street journal) and books (including one by Bill Clinton) mention the subject, and these sources are independent also. It is true that this WP:SIGCOV creates only an assumption, not a guarantee that the subject merits their own article. That being said given the substantial number of times this person has been covered significantly, I feel the subject meets the standards of WP:GNG and for that reason the article should stay - Such-change47 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF, but three books coedited by him have in-depth reviews. Together with the incidental coverage already in the article, I think there's a weak case both for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. (There are enough reviews that the AUTHOR case would be strong if the books were authored, but as coedited works I think they count less.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He has written 3 books that have been covered in multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:AUTHOR. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Actually my personal opinion is a strong keep, and I only added "weak" for by-the-rules.  I NPP reviewed (but did not tag as reviewed) a bit back.  I said IMO just short on wp:GNG sources, suggested adding some of those, and tagged for notability. Has been improved a bit in those areas. The article also needs work but that is not a question for here. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2021 (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.