Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Schaffer (2nd 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 delete. Setting aside the procedural issues, the substance of this is quite clear cut; the primary argument for deletion is that GNG is not met; and this has not been refuted. Multiple sources provided at the previous AfD, which keep !voters there and here refer to, are unreliable per WP:RSP; the argument that the rest are not substantive is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Schaffer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not sure the subject meets WP:N general notability guidelines. He appears to have gotten some media attention on Fox News for interviewing Kyle Rittenhouse before the shootings, plus media criticism coverage from Mediaite where Schaffer complained about Zionist influence. Everything else is from non-RSs: right-wing blogs and similar publications (National File, PJ Media). In short: I don't think the above stories amount to the level of substantial or sustained coverage necessary for a BLP. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the time I created this AFD, I wasn't aware it had been listed a month ago. Revisiting the previous AFD listing, Such-change47 provided a set of links. Out of the four links, I judge MEAWW to be clearly non-RS, and Blaze Media is Schaffer's employer. Mashable and the Daily Beast are okay as sources as per WP:RSP but I still don't think this is enough RS coverage for a BLP. Also pinging Kiwichris and DFXYME who participated last time.-Ich (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative close as per WP:RENOM, this only closed as keep two weeks ago. Wait, address with closer Liz, or take it to DRV instead. Sorry you didn't see it before starting this, but the Old AFD notice does appear to be on the article talk page as is customary. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete assuming no additional coverage found. Also found these articles [1] [2] which I deem reliable enough to count for N, but these are just passing mentions. This individual may become notable in the future, but there just does not seem to be sufficient coverage today. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was an AFD as recent as a month ago, and it is normally bad practice to renominate such an article for deletion so soon... WP:CCC states: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. As there was a) limited participation in the prior AFD, b) as the nomination argument here is distinctly different than the prior one, and as c) commentary now refutes some of the sources provided in the prior AFD... I think it is reasonable to allow this to remain open for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprised to see this article immediately renominated after the closure of the first AFD which, except for the nominator, was unanimous in wanting to Keep the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC) It sounds like a reassessment of the article sources, and additional ones proposed for it, warrants further review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It doesn't seem like this page would quite meet GNG based on the sources in the article or the ones found in the previous afd. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Not seeing WP:BIO. We have two sources about how he participated in the storming of the capitol and a couple mediaite posts. It's not nothing, but it's not quite enough. There's also a WP:BLP issue in that if we base this article on those sources, it would be entirely negative. As for the previous AfD, someone linked to four sources, two of them in unreliable sources, and two other people "per"ed them. The last person added five more unreliable sources (for the purposes of notability anyway). Obviously it couldn't be deleted based on what participation there was, but a very low quality discussion is a fine reason to renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should've taken the previous discussion to the WP:DRV in the first place instead of renominating it a couple of weeks after it was closed. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept last month. Article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the previous discussion. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources in particular from the previous discussion help satisfy GNG? They have been contested in this discussion, so I am curious which you see as strong. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per the discussion of previous AFD and the above i changed my vote from last Delete to Keep. The references somewhere meets WP:BASIC. DFXYME (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2022 (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.