Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Embry

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.

(non-admin closure) Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Jim Embry

[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)

Non-notable individual, not finding any sourcing we can use to keep the article. Sourcing given is largely primary or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Please do a more thorough WP:BEFORE prior to AfD nominations. Found reliable independent sources here, here, and here. Jack4576 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a podcast and a non-RS website? No. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The University is related to him, those are primary sources. The second link is about the building, not him, did you even look at the sources? Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an academic merely having a relationship with their university does not make publications associated with that university a primary source. The second source is about a building, however it refers to and quotes him extensively as an expert demonstrating his notability as a local activist. The third source profiles him over multiple paragraphs.

"did you even look at the sources?" pfft Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That being a question you routinely ask of other people, often caustically, it's scarcely out of line to ask it of you. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jack's sources obviously don't meet
WP:SIGCOV, couldn't find anything that met the guideline personally. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Why? Jack4576 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Oaktree b explained, they are all primary sources, which don't count to
WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
He is incorrect. They are secondary sources not primary sources. They are also independent sources. It isn't even particularly ambiguous. Jack4576 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of Jack’s references are inadequate. I wouldn’t call the UKNow article primary unless you get really technical about it. I encourage the closing admin to look at it for him/herself. here —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a FYI note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are not much more than either local and/or primary sources, which does not invalidate the nomination. His social media presence is minimal. There is at least an allegation of activism that could have gotten coverage. I'm open to more discussion. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PERX. Please provide at least a brief explanation on why you think an article should be deleted or kept. Simply stating that "X" needs keeping/deleting per above is not enough per Wikipedia policies. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It may seem like the discussion is leaning keep, but I would like a stronger consensus. Also, per above !votes don’t hold a lot of weight in my mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find additional coverage by searching on Google Scholar ([1], [2], and I'd agree that the UKNow source is valid in context, as it is a historical retrospective on student activism and not a PR-piece for their research. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
(talk) 13:40, 3 June 2023 (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.