Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Scott Edell

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Scott Edell

[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:BASIC. I couldn't find reliable sources discussing him in detail. --Pontificalibus 07:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus Thanks for the feedback. I am going to go back and resolve this issue to prevent the deletion. --DaJerm (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus I have since gone through the entry and cleaned it up considerably, deleting non-relevant information and non-verifiable sources. --DaJerm (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article adheres to the Biographies of living persons guidelines. I recommend this discussion to be closed. DaJerm (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation, after resolving issues presented, is to keep the article. --DaJerm (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Can you explain further why this is being relisted again? The article has been sufficiently altered from the original to adhere to the biographies of a living person criteria. I do not understand why it has been relisted again rather than the discussion being closed. --DaJerm (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DaJerm, there is not clear consensus to keep the article. Right now you are the only one arguing to keep it. In addition, many of the sources used are not reliable (Forbes contributors, youtube, and imdb; see WP:RSP). We need an analysis of the reliable sources to establish that there is significant coverage of the subject. b uidhe 06:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe thank you for the clarification and linking to WP:RSP. That makes sense and I will cite appropriate sources moving forward and will adjust the page accordingly. --DaJerm (talk) 17:04, 21 February 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.