Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tsemberis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tsemberis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited. All sources are about org, not person Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Staszek Lem МандичкаYO 😜 02:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has a profile in Carlos W. Pratt; Kenneth J. Gill; Nora M. Barrett (6 October 2006). Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Academic Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-08-046590-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), non-trivial mentions in several books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is awful. Most of it is about "Housing First," which would present a good argument for "Redirect." The text of the argument -- ostensibly a biographical article, mind you -- never identifies the subject's place of birth or current residence. Furthermore, it talks about "then" he does this and "then" that, and he always does it "here." Here? Really? That's fantastic! This homelessness cure is here? I'll remember that when my employer folds, because surely "here" means here. It doesn't mean Washington, D.C., does it? I love how people do independent research, see that a person is discussed, and then say "keep," as if that were the end. This article isn't about the person, and it doesn't inform a reader. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is WP:SUMMARY guideline which addresses the concern of unbalanced/duplicated text content. Yes, please remember him when your employer folds, your wife divorces you, your children forget you, you lose your right arm, so that you become a chronic alcoholic and a dirty tramp. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I can't find anything about him that is really about him, not the method he has put into place to house the homeless. The WaPo article is the closest thing to being about him, but it says little about him as a person. Until more biographical information comes along, a stand-alone article on him hasn't got enough content to justify it. There is no reason why a bio article might not be suitable in the future. LaMona (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's this WaPo piece, and seemingly non-trivial mentions here and here. They are not exclusively interested in the housing project; they consider him as a person, and how his background impacts his work; they see him as notable besides his involvement in the project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep also. I am agree with Staszek Lem Shad Innet (talk) 10:55, 9 June 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.