Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Swade (3rd nomination)

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) JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Swade[edit]

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

This source has been published since the last AFD which does directly address the subject, announcing he now works for Rolling Stone. Other than that though the coverage is, as before, all brief passing mentions e.g. [1] [2]. As before the article was written by a paid editor and I don't think that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG are met. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of this entry. I have declared any COI on the talk page. The subject is notable and definitely passes WP:GNG. This is a filmmaker who has co-directed and starred in one feature for ESPN, is in production on another, has directed or produced several short docs for ESPN and Rolling Stone, and written a book. He does not simply "work for Rolling Stone" - he heads their video division. His activities have regularly received coverage in well-known press since 2012, as can be seen in the article's references (which include pieces in The New Yorker, New York Times, New York Daily News, Variety, Kansas City Star, etc.)--Bernie44 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernie44: Can you post the references you think show that the GNG is passed - i.e. substantial, independent coverage of the subject. IMO, the Variety is the only one which directly addresses the subject. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the subject easily passes GNG with articles and interviews such as these: Variety, Kansas City Star, Slam Magazine, another Kansas City Star, Austin Chronicle. And then there are also these: The New Yorker, ESPN, MLB.com and Rolling Stone. And the others cited in the entry.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between coverage of There’s No Place Like Home and additional material like the Variety article, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE: There's No Place Like Home (which he starred in and co-directed) has quite a lot of coverage, even if his book didn't get much (I guess sports fans prefer TV). Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 22 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.