Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Isserman

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. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Isserman

[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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are all news releases of the fellowship. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hopelessly promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey folks, this is my first article and I'm still getting my bearings so appreciate your patience and suggestions too :-) Update: cut several of my fluffy sentences. Hopefully less promotional and more encyclopedic in this draft. Also added two extra sources from The Daily Illini (University of Illinois' paper of record "Noah Isserman encourages iVenture involvement") and Philanthropy Impact Magazine (a leading industry publication) to better establish WP:N and WP:SIGCOV beyond the Cambridge University and Amherst College publications. Any other ideas to improve? Thanks! Dash12Crash (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the newly made revisions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eddie891: How goes it? That first ref is an interview and is not independent, so can't be used to prove notability. The Philanthropy Impact Magazine may be a leading publication, but it is his article he has written and presented, so can't be used to prove he is notable. If they're was reviews of it, and series of articles going back, say a couple of decades and they're was reviews of them, proving he was author, then perhaps he would be notable, but currently he is notable. The references are a mess with no WP:SECONDARY sources to veryify he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable under either WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC (citation counts are quite low). The references are, almost without exception, routine notices or from sources affiliated with his school, so not independent. I mean, we do have an article from the local news stating that "In 2003, University Laboratory High School senior Noah Isserman was named the 2003 Illinois High School Journalist of the Year" but that's sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it? Spicy (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Hi guys! I didn't realize that articles from Cambridge and Amherst weren't considered reliable sources. Spent the afternoon adding additional citations for Isserman's work and research to better establish WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Appreciate if y'all can take a look and offer any other suggestions for me to improve. Thank you and Happy 4th! Dash12Crash (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The additional citations, consisting of a few one-sentence mentions, articles that he wrote (WP:PRIMARY), and a short blurb on a blog, are similarly useless. You are not allowed to vote "keep" twice. Spicy (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Phrasing feels promotional and most sources are primary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, I can't see any good coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (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.