Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Lent

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lent[edit]

[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)

This individual appears to fail WP:GNG, with most sources coming from self-published, dubious, or minor sources. His body of work appears insufficiently notable to achieve WP:AUTHOR, though it is possible that some of the sources here could be moved to pages on those specific works if this were to be deleted. Jlevi (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jlevi (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator) There may be more sources than I initially found. If the source The Street is generally deemed reliable, then this article from 2000 might count for notability. And though Lent is not the primary topic of the article, he get over five paragraphs about him as an individual and his research in this recent Vice piece. These articles may still not pass standards, and I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the matter. From my perspective, it would be narrow. Jlevi (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've looked at the sourcing so far, I would appreciate Draftify or User-ify if the consensus goes for delete. Given that Lent has coverage both from his NextCredit days in the NYT and more recently regarding some climate-related issues, this is probably sustained coverage, and I think it's probable that I could find more sourcing if I dig. In particular, mention of the NextCredit story in the NYT means that there is probably more coverage is lower-tier or local papers, though (since it's from the early 2000s) I'll need to dig for it. Right now the sourcing isn't evident, but it might be soon. 14:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - overwrought, poorly-written, under-sourced mess. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if Lent passes WP:GNG, which the current sourcing does not indicate, best case scenario is that this article needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 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.