Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Guggenheim

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 to delete, and leaning towards "keep", although several editors are only mildly inclined in that direction. bd2412 T 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Guggenheim[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable person is sourced to non-RS except for one fleeting mention in Politico. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposed deletion is ludicrous. If you believe there are not enough sources for you, find some more, don't propose deletion! Though the three there are are sufficient.

Scott has been quoted by WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghans-policy-wonk-turned-president-visits-u-s-1426875619), New Yorker, (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/ashraf-ghani-afghanistans-theorist-in-chief), Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/29/ashraf-ghanis-struggle/), RFERL, (https://www.rferl.org/a/Ashraf_Ghani_Afghanistans_Unlikely_Politician_/1793394.html) and many more, including academic papers. This is quite enough to establish notability.

Try actually reviewing the notability criteria, you've already been called out by another editor for wrongly trying to use speedy delete, this is no better. To help you out: Before nominating an article for Articles for deletion (AfD):

Consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Now I know you didn't do any of these things because the article was proposed for deletion seconds after being created.Kuching7102 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- there's an in-depth piece in the Politico Magazine, where he appears to be a significant figure in Afgan politics: "To get something done in Afghanistan, you need to know Scott Guggenheim. But even the ultimate fixer isn’t sure anyone can solve the country’s problems." This seems like a sufficient claim of significance. Source: "The Man Who Thought He Could Fix Afghanistan". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Some coverage prior to Politico- [1], [2], [3], [4]. Beyond this he seems to be called to comment on Afghan affairs quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the nomination for deletion was way too soon - the same day the article was made. I would give it a few weeks before nominating for deletion. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2017 (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.