Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Mulholland

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.  Sandstein  21:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Mulholland

Jamie Mulholland (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  04:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as although the current article seems amply sourced and informative, this is still questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability. WP:TNT at best, SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I didn't evaluate the offline sources, but the New York Observer is one instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source.

WP:BASIC advises us that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Sources that are mainly about his nightclubs, but contain snippets of information about him, in outlets from Women's Wear Daily through The New York Times, such as: [1], [2], [3]†, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]†, [9] can be treated, in combination, as a second in-depth, independent, reliable, secondary source, thereby satisfying the notability guideline. Worldbruce (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

†(already cited in article)

• Delete. Nothing here is even significant enough to be worth counting at all--they are all of them minor mentions. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether being the 5th most successful nightclub promoter in New York is a significant accomplishment, but I wouldn't ordinarily call 1,800 words a minor mention. Granted, it's in a tabloid. Pinging AfC accepter/rescuer - a concerned editor who contributed as much as the original author did to the article. Interested in what their thinking was and is. Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, naturally since I accepted it in the first place I will !vote to keep it. I added five more references. Being "successful" doesn't necessarily mean notable in the Wikipedia sense, but this fellow has been written about many times in many newspapers and magazines. Articles with a sentence or two are often useful if they substantiate specific facts. I agree with Worldbruce that short sections in a large number of references should add up to notability, provided that when combined they contain a variety of information about the subject. Sometimes there are many short news reports which just all mention the same two or three facts, but that's not the case here. And there's considerably more to be found than there was about a couple of academia-related articles which were accepted recently.—Anne Delong (talk) 08:22, 25 February 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.