Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanan Gordon

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanan Gordon

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chanan Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification (and declined G11) on highly promotional bio of non-notable individual. Appears to be WP:ADMASQ. Sources demonstrate failure on WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. They are limited to:

• WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs: Official bios and the subject's own podcasts etc. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), database sources ([10], [11]), the subject's own writing ([12], [13], [14], [15]).
• Non-independent sources: [16],
• Primary source Q&A interview: [17],
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs: [18], [19], [20].
• One source that doesn't mention him: [21]

Nothing else qualifying was found in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are zero reliable sources about him. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All of the references are WP:PRIMARY and I don't see how this could be saved with the lack of any independent sources. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If the content primarily relies on self-published or promotional material without in-depth third-party analysis --Xrimonciam (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2025 (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.