Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack D. Schwager (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 09:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Schwager

[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)

BLP - author - with reference to his 3 books and a video interview. . Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is clearly inadequate to show notability. A video interview is never going to be enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant reviews for his books. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prev. 2019 Afd (what's changed?). It turns out I found reviews in that iteration. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the nomination and subsequent delete !vote come across as basing notability upon the state of sourcing in the article. However, per WP:NEXIST, part of the Notability guideline page, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Perhaps an analysis of sources presented in the previous AfD discussion would help to clarify matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable author, his book Market Wizards is one of the foremost books on trading --Devokewater @ 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this stub. Schwager is one of the most widely read authors in technical analysis. His works are part of the syllabuses of several professional certification programs, e.g. IFTA::CFTe. --Rolf acker (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have some sources to confirm this please.Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The suggestion by NA1000 hasn't really be followed through despite more participation so let's try relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the suggestion of NA1000 and Barkeep49, I took a look at the sources from the last AfD. I am using the standards from WP:GNG to decide if Schwager is notable and the sources fulfil that criteria.

Both this link [1] and this link [2] are reviews of his books from Publishers Weekly, so I grouped them together. These sources are significant coverage of the author's book, reliable (although the reviews don't have the author listed, the magazine has Review Editors listed in their about us section) and independent. Link 4 in the first AfD is the same url as link 1. This link [3] is also significant coverage of the author's book, is reliable (there is an author listed and a masthead on both the Seattlepi and blogcritics.org website where the review was originally located) and independent.

I also searched for more sources. [4] recommends reading Schwager's book, while NYT also did a review on his book [5] I also found this book review from JSTOR: [www.jstor.org/stable/24586267]. The Encyclopedia.com citation [6] is not a WP:RS but the site contains a list of sources that we can use in our article (although a lot of them are behind a paywall).

I failed to find any profiles or sources about the author. However, I think Schwager fulfils WP:AUTHOR C3 because his work has been the subject of multiple reviews and C1 because numerous articles quote his work when they profiling a person interviewed for Schwager's book or quote peers in his field who recommend reading his book. Z1720 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR, based on Z1720's analysis. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what the 'keep' votes are suggesting. The author is notable. Idealigic (talk) 21:18, 19 August 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.