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 delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnome McEwan[edit]

Jahnome McEwan (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)

Non-notable subject that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. To begin, any discussion about notability will hinge on GNG, as though the subject has a book, it was self-published and thus WP:AUTHOR is not met. As far as GNG is concerned, WP:SIGCOV is the main issue with the article; a good-faith search turns up the sources cited by the article, but these are simply not enough to establish notability. Two can be dismissed easily; one is a blog [1] that heavily features quotes from an interview with the subject (thus it is neither reliable nor third party, in addition to depth of coverage issues), and the other is a radio interview [2] with the subject that is likewise not independent from the subject. The third source (an article [3] by globeandmail.ca) is better, but again it places a heavy emphasis on an interview with the subject, and much of the article is not related to McEwan at all and is rather concerning costs associated with college. Note that I have seen the globeandmail article re-posted at least twice on other sites. In short, the article subject has not accrued the significant, in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here hands him an automatic notability freebie just because he exists, but the referencing is not cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. People get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not by being the interview guest who's speaking about something other than himself or by self-publishing his own web presence or by getting profiled on a bank's corporate blog — so the Rob Carrick article in The Globe and Mail is the only source here that even starts to build a case for notability, but one viable source doesn't finish the case for notability all by itself if it isn't verifying anything that would constitute an "inherent" notability claim (such as winning the Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction for his book.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger basis for notability and better sourcing for it, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which he's entitled to have an article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2018 (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.