Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Roskin

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. Sandstein 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Roskin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears non-notable. I found several news blurbs announcing his appointment to leading the ICA, but all appear to be derivative of a press release appearing here: [1]. The ICA is a non-notable trade organization for promoting the business of colored gemstones. His other shot at notability would be his awards. The Liddicoat Journalism Award also appears non-notable, and I can find no coverage of the 2004 awards. The sole source mentioning his award is on a bio page from an organization he works for. Other media mentions generally stem from outlets quoting a sentence or two about gem-related news posted to his blog. I can find no evidence that he is important enough to his field to warrant an article, and it seems that his most notable contributions have been as a trade promoter. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of indepth secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my due diligence and found a few articles that talk to him as a subject matter expert, but, everything else is a mere mention. Nothing significant. Missvain (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.