Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack S. Margolis

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. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack S. Margolis[edit]

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

Non-notable writer and actor, fails AUTHOR, NACTOR and GNG. YousufMiah (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets criteria for notability. It asserts notability as a counterculture writer of multiple books and is supported by verifiable, independent references. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have to argue against many of the sources as far as notability giving goes. IMDb isn't usable to show notability as anyone can edit it. Merchant sources such as Amazon and CD Universe are really discouraged in general for the obvious reasons (the sites' purpose is to sell you things), and many of the other sources are primary. The NIU source is good, albeit maybe slightly trivial in nature, and the Hartford Courant article is also good. All in all, those are probably the only two sources I'd keep, but we definitely need more as far as showing solid notability goes. I don't think (or at least I hope) that sources will be that hard to find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that I've cleaned out the blatantly unusable sources, I've managed to add in just enough to where it should be a comfortable enough keep. Now what I didn't add were the amount of sources that listed some of his books as various sources and recommended reading. Here are some of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], pharmacology textbook). Some of what I've listed are "pop culture" type books, but Margolis is listed in some textbooks as well. I have a feeling that there is probably more out there that isn't on the internet, which isn't entirely surprising given the time period. There's enough to suggest that his work is still considered relatively influential today. He's not Timothy O'Leary, but he's still notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worth keeping for The Child's Garden of Grass alone. Margolis, if I recall correctly, was featured in articles/interviews (?) in Creem and Rolling Stone magazines when that recording was at it's most popular. Passes AUTHOR Nos. 3 & 4. Cypella (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (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.