Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dare Jennings

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 Redirect to Mambo Graphics. Plainly there is no consensus to keep here, leaving the only matter to be considered as whether to delete or redirect. The only keep !vote is based on the view that interviews are sufficient to sustain notability, a view that was decisively countered. Deus et lex's point about WP:ATD meaning this is a preferred route is conclusive, and the delete voters were not opposed to this either. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dare Jennings

[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)

No evidence of any notability. The company he created possibly scrapes by the notability guidelines but this BLP is woefully inadequately supported by sources which seem to be an interview , an article about the company selling out and a commentary on seling the business. Searches reveal nothing. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mambo Graphics. An obvious alternative to deletion that must be considered before deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An interview in RS/IS is SIGCOV for notability in my book.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any interview is rarely satisfactory for establishing notability as it is in the subject's own words. I haven't a clue what "RS/IS" is but it doesn't seem to be one of the refs quoted and my searches fail to find anything of that name. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if an WP:RS/WP:IS features an interview of a subject, that is WP:SIGCOV for establishing notability. Interviews are primary with respect to establishing specific facts. But SIGCOV is easily established with interviews. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to Mambo Graphics. Whenever I see a two-sentence BLP and coverage so shallow that a fully-flesh biography is not possible, its time to delete or redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of three sources, two are interviews which are primary and do not count towards establishing notability. I am not opposed to redirect either.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in RS/IS do count as SIGCOV for establishing notability. They just are not good sources of factual information. (If an RS/IS considered someone important enough to interview them, that's not trivial.) — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The attempts to establish notability for "well known businessmen" more often than not come with the distinct aroma of professional -if we may generously exaggerate a bit- assistance. This one is rather lame. A Redirect would not be out of place, though. -The Gnome (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (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.