Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Hershaft

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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hershaft

Alex Hershaft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Can't find independent reliable sources or other ways to establish notability. Most promising source is this local newspaper article. Utsill (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an animal rights activists without a significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree with the vote, I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to use "animal rights activist" or "significant impact" as criteria. Maybe you just mean notability. Utsill (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this your personal opinion, or based upon notability guidelines? Note that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which is a basis for notability on Wikipedia. See sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His name comes up quite a bit in reliable sources when I search for it at Google Books with "animal rights activist". I'd say he's notable in his field, with significant coverage. ABF99 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Delete. Not finding any WP:RS from Google Books searches, even though there are quite a few results. Utsill (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, you don't have to repeat delete, although comments are allowed. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Farm Animal Rights Movement, I think he has just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What coverage qualified as WP:RS? Utsill (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find enough coverage to pass WP:BIO, notable in his field. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But what's the coverage? Utsill (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 26 October 2016 (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.