Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Perryman

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. ✗plicit 05:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Perryman

[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)

Some mentions in coverage, but not enough to make me think it passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the NYTimes article isn't really WP:INDEPENDENT, Huffpost contributor article is not WP:RELIABLE, the Intellectual Conservative review is not bad. It actually helped me find a strong Sports Illustrated piece, Seattle Times (though this isn't very WP:INDEPENDENT so marginal contribution to notability), and claims that there are several others, though I can't find them online at the moment. There are multiple YouTube videos from news organizations/reliable sources too (though they are speeches). Regardless, I think notability is met here.

TLA (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning Keep, although for opposite reasons sated above, and userfy. The New York Times, whatever you might say about their editorial choices, is a reliable source. I think, again, without agreeing to his opinions and controversies, appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the current state of the article is terrible, and it needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added to the article that Perryman is himself African--American and had first-hand experience of the issue of which he writes. Seemed odd that the article never mentioned that. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2024 (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.