Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall L Saunders

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall L Saunders

[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 of article doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, independent sources - Two references meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [1] Bornstein, David (May 29, 2013). "Lobbying for the Greater Good", (published online by the New York Times) and [2] Motlagh, Rebecca (December 4, 2003). "Coronado Man Finds Satisfaction In Helping Others". The latter is an in-depth article focused solely on the subject, while the former establishes his notability as the founder the Citizens' Climate Lobby. (Please take a look at CCL). A third in-depth reference, [3] Geoffrey, Johnson. "Friendly persuasion" Rotary, was written 18 years after the subject left the Rotary Club. It meets the criteria of "Independent of the subject". Mbcoats (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires more than just two sources. We do not just count up the footnotes and indiscriminately keep everybody who meets or exceeds two — GNG takes into account the geographic range of where the sources are coming from and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and is not just an invariable n>=2.Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to an ideal activist with minor coverage, name mentions, and small profiles, but non-notable. Nothing in-depth, intellectually independent. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've read the NYT article--taken along with the other references, it's sufficient. It talks about Saunders with regard to leadership to two separate major organizations. It's an opinion piece by a well known journalst, David Bornstein . Considering the author ,I consider it as reliable as an news story in the nYT. I'd advise people to read it before you !vote. Had I omitted to read it, I might have !voted delete also. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Taking into consideration the size and impact of the organization Saunders founded, CCL, I vote that he is notable. CCL is supported by recognized climate scientists James Hansen and Katharine Hayhoe. Its advisory board includes former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former congressman Bob Inglis, and actor Don Cheadle. The organization has citizen chapters in nearly every U.S. state and in many countries, most notably Australia and Canada. Mbcoats (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two excellent sources in the NY Times and Bloomberg. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 6 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.