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 no consensus. Legoktm (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Seckbach (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)

I found a malformed nomination at the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Seckbach while cleaning up old AfDs that were never closed properly. It originally contained, prior to being overwritten,

This page does not contain one single reference. Its only purpose seems to be to list off Youtube stats and mention accolades while providing zero proof. I don't believe Elie is a legitimate journalist and I don't see how he warrants having a Wikipedia page.
— — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The article has not improved in the intervening years, and is still filled with unsupported promotion and invalid sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Boxing, Olympics, Israel, and United States of America. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hueman1, per WP:NEXIST not containing any references is not a reason to AfD. If you did not find that there is any substantial problem with the article, this AfD should be closed as procedural keep. You did mention promotion. Is your claim that the promotion is so strong that WP:TNT is in order? Or do you claim that the subject is WP:NN? Or both? Just wondering. I'm open to all options! gidonb (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to ping me; the original nomination I quoted seems to end with a circumlocution for "not notable", which I didn't investigate super-hard before refiling since I figured I should still give it a shot at life. If you think this should be substantively kept, feel free to !vote that way, but I saw what looked like a plausible reason for deletion so would oppose a procedural close. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I pinged the wrong person. Thanks for the response! gidonb (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Profile in the Los Angeles Times in 2018. Looking for second GNG source, but the main article needs clean up. --Enos733 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a second source might be from Ring magazine. - Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also stories in the Sacramento Bee and Sports Illustrated describing the subject's journalistic style. - Enos733 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this story in the Sports Business Journal is original reporting or just rephrasing the LA Times profile. --Enos733 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; while one's a blog (sacbee), we've got others up above this very line in previous reviews and there's the interview with the LA Times. Maybe he's a little obscure, but he seems to meet WP:GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The LA Times article is solid, but that's the only coverage I can find for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in this establishes notability. The LA Times article is valid but not enough by itself. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:34, 5 November 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.