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. The !keep votes are from accounts that are very unconvincing - indeed, I'll be off to SPI for one of them soon. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Winters[edit]

Ed Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One minor news article, the rest are his sources for making money. Small number of followers. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with current  topics, Wikipedia requires notability verified through reliable sources, and this article fits here perfectly, namely, to inform readers of a person who has a notable coverage.  Mr. Winters’ profile, whom I was totally unfamiliar with prior to arriving to this AfD, has superseded the animal protection and vegan activism by appearing, not only in two news events in major international papers, but in many more. I also find little strength in the argument that these news are hardly related to Mr. Winters when he is at the center of the events reported and often the only name mentioned.
Here are the ones I found together with the ones mentioned above (for perspective). All of these sources fit within what internal discussion in WP has already identified as reliable sources (see here and here).
The Daily Telegraph: here, here, and here.
The Guardian: here.
The Huffingtonpost: here.
Evening Standard: here, here and here (see here for a discussion about this source as reliable).
Montreal Times: here.
In scholarly circles, at least: one here. (as per E.M.Gregory below)
This list is not counting the myriads of references to lesser reliable sources like the Sun, Metro, or business news, and publications dealing with animal rights or vegan activism. There is something fishy when a brand-new account plunges into AfD debates saying, “Zero reliable sources.” Obviously, this is a statement that cannot be supported by evidence now. Den... (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion doesn't need to make someone "look like a rockstar." The fact there are links to his specific projects Also, none of those sources listed cover him significantly per WP:SIGCOV - they all just mention him. SportingFlyer talk 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I looked at the alleged "scholarly" source above, it is a mere speakers listing of Winters as one of scores of speakers at a conference on animal rights. NOT scholarly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @E.M.Gregory: perhaps you could agree that editors with an idiosyncratic track record may also at times compose indispensable and conventional articles. Den... (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing record, and record is certainly, er... unusual. As are the editing records of User:Steven02511 and User:Morgan Ginsberg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in this other comment, in which I thanked you for pointing me to the error of WP:CITEKILL, I asked you to assume good faith from my part (WP:GF), not to plant doubts about my intentions in order to gain ground with your arguments. I have no stake here at all. I have presented my views and evidences, and wish you all well. Den... (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be a reasonably split consensus, primarily on whether the sources provided are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2018 (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.