Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Ruhl


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Zack Ruhl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article comes with several sources, some of them in reliable publications. They fail to convince me that the subject is notable for more than a single thing: a fitness trainer whose legs have been amputated. Apart from potentially falling foul of WP:1E, I think this article also verges on WP:MILL since there will be many people with a story very similar to the subject's who received coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are muliple references on the article that seem to meet WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" and WP:ANYBIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" Jeepday (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are presumed notable. I don't dispute that they meet the coverage threshold. However, I think that the subject is only notable for one event and therefor should not have an article (WP:1E). They also might fall under what is described at WP:ROTM. Could you elaborate how your vote answers these concerns? Modussiccandi (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt the subject's career can be describes as 'of the enduring historical record'. If that were the case, every person with a similar story would be equally notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO the article needs to be expanded. As the references indicate having his legs amputated is not what makes him notable, his accomplishments over several years is what makes him notable. Jeepday (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The references do show that he is notable. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 13:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep SIGCOV from several reliable sources make him notable. Rogermx (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable subject with significant coverage in RSs. Luciapop (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't intend to stand in the way of the consensus here and I'm inclined to withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep. But would any of the keep !voters (except Jeepday) care to refute the actual point of my nomination? You all make GNG based arguments although I indicate in the first sentence that I do not object to his meeting GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:06, 25 January 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.