Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph A. Cafasso

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. The subject meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Cafasso

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of biographical article fails general rules on notability. Commenters are reminded that merely having reliable sources is not enough for a biography. This particular individual appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT and fails both WP:PERP and WP:PERSISTENCE due to lack of coverage beyond contemporary news sources. Legitimus (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Legitimus (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to demur from the nomination, because this appears to be a serial fraudster whose career in these matters may not be over. In other words, he got RS coverage for frauds, but then he got them again. Further, I can see, thanks to the Outfoxed role and the ongoing conversations about parallel worlds of "experts" employed by left and right "bubbles" in the US, his being a searched term. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cafasso inherently falls under fringe rules. His comments in "Outfoxed" are clearly an example of fringe. His other involvements have almost all been fringe. There is not the sourcing to establish notability against those rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person's commentary being fringe, which I'm granting for the sake of argument, does not mean they are not notable enough for an article. Can you quote the rules you are referring to? Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the subject of a long profile in the New York Times meets WP:GNG by itself. There is other coverage in RS as well. The article needs work, but Cafasso is notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (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.