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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gleich[edit]

Jonathan Gleich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article was deleted previously through AFD, and I'm told this version is improved and better referenced. As it stands now, though, the references currently in the article only show minor local notability and no lasting importance.

Note: on the article's talk page, the creating editor (User:Lscappel) stated that they're the co-author of the subject's in-progress autobiography. As such, I advised the editor of WP:COI and best practices, but there's been no acknowledgement. Not that this has anything to do with the article as such, but given the antics in the previous AFD, it's worth keeping an eye out for shenanigans. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ My talk page Before deciding on Afd. Thank you Lscappel (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Lscappel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the "My talk page" link above is to the article's talk page, not the editor's talk page. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also re-created the original article in HERE so you can see the changes before it was wikified and edited. Lscappel (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Well, I approve of the editors you have invited to this discussion, the broad scope of interests they have, will be a better representation of the people this article impacts.
If there is a Weight loss surgery group, and / or a Halloween group I would invite them as well. -- Lscappel (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not a shred of evidence in the article or from a google search that suggests this guy is notable. The aforementioned google search throws up nothing even close to a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 October 2009

• Keep - coverage in the NYPress, NY Daily News, NY Post, and Brooklyn Paper are all specifcially about the subject and as such meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So what is he notable for? Getting six traffic tickets, appealing them, and losing? Even The Brooklyn Paper says in its own article that he has no historical import. And if what he's notable for is law breaking, does he qualify under WP:Notability (criminal acts), which requires "significant coverage in sources with national or global scope"? So far as I can tell, these are just local human interest stories. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Well yes, he is notable for getting the tickets. He is also notable for communitng on his segway and fighting those tickets as documented by the articles. We don't establish notability through personal opinion. We establish notability through coverage in reliable sources which exists here. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I think WP:1E applies here. Even though it's sourced well, I don't think the guy is notable enough. All the sources just mention him in passing, there's not enough about HIM sourced. Mr Radio Guy !!! 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure how 1E applies. What "one event" is he notable for? He is a Segway activist. The coverage I noted spans multiple years. Daily news is from Aug 2009. Press is from June 2008. Paper is from July 2008. NY Post is from May 2007. A blip of news coverage would generate articles from a small time span. This is spread across 3 years. He is also the primary subject of the article so I don't understand how you can say he is just mentioned in passing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage in reliable sources clearly sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Article needs cleanup though. --CooperDB (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (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.