Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatole Jenkins

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Jenkins[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)

Much like the recently-deleted Emmy Ruiz, created by the same editor that created this page, the subject of this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All reference are either primary only mention Jenkins in passing and a further search didn't turn up much besides more passing mentions. GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like promo: clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political strategists can get Wikipedia articles if they can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough substantive media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist. The sources here simply aren't cutting it, however: three of the five footnotes are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and the other two are short "person gets job" blurbs in employment announcement columns. And while there's one other reference being wrongly listed as an external link instead of a cited footnote, it's a Q&A interview in which he's giving advice on how to train volunteers, not substantive coverage about him. These sources aren't getting him over the GNG bar, and the article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get him over the GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (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.