Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Shafer

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. Secret ^account 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shafer[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable person. It seems like this page is being used as spam for Jeremy Shafer's YouTube channel. Andrewpmk | Talk 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There doesn't seem to be much significant coverage about him. It doesn't help that the article has only been worked on by IPs and SPAs (including the creator, who hasn't been on Wikipedia in over two years). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much says he is non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My first reaction was "get real," and I was all set to delete it. And my first Google News search turned up only other people with similar names. But refining the search I found quite a few items at Google News. I have added several references to the (previously uncited) article; there were others behind paywalls. I think he may be notable enough for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In the world of origami, which most people don't really know much about in the first place, Jeremy Shafer is brilliant. He comes up with new designs about every other week, and figured out how to make Akira Yoshizawa's self-portrait just by looking at a picture of it (there are no diagrams). He has also published books and diagrams. I agree that this article can be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. Thanks for any consideration of my input. Ensignricky (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeremy Shafer is the top of his field; just because it is a fairly uncelebrated field doesn't mean it's unimportant or useless. Much like our pages on chess champs such as Garry Kasparov, he's a well-known figure in origami, and has plenty of fans and followers. If that doesn't make him "important" or "enough of a celebrity", then Wikipedia is denying its users the right of knowledge, which is the reason they come here in the first place. This page does require some development, but deletion is the last thing it needs. Vulpa 13:19, 27 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.