Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Tilton

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Tilton

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

Notability issue, As most reference are from Wikipedia itself and none of them written about subject in depth. ·•·1997 kB 03:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources about him already in the article plus references available elsewhere combined with his published work meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need sources about a subject, not ones by them, and the former is lacking on Tilton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources in the article are about the person. [1] is an interview. [2] is a short biography. There are a few others that count as reasonable reliable sources that are fairly in-depth and independent. Seems above the bar. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References 4, 6, 7, and 10 are independent RS discussing the subject in significant depth. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- both sources offered above are interviews and are not suitable for establishing notability:

ThePOGG Interviews – Nathaniel Tilton author of The Blackjack Life
Meet Kennebunk’s own blackjack pro Also based on an interview, with quotes by the subject such as :

Before he knew it. Tilton had perfected an impressive (!) blackjack strategy that was working quite well for him.

“Necessity is the mother of invention, and the result was the creation of a virtually undetectable system, something never before documented,” he said. This discovery prompted him to write the book, “The Blackjack Life.”

The coverage is clearly PR-driven and WP:SPIP, not independent of the subject. Sources in the article is of the same quality: "Blackjack ace from Newburyport turns to financial planning". Newburyportnews.com. Etc. Basically, promotional 'cruft on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources about him in reliable and verifiable sources establish his notability as a blackjack player / author. There are some crappy, irrelevant and promotional sourcing, but that's an issue for cleanup not an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of the "sources" presented here as being the best, one is a primary source, and the other is pretty obvious marketing fluff. Neither are useful in demonstrating that this individual meets the WP:GNG. I don't see much better in the sources used in the article, which are either not independent of the subject, or in niche publications that look to have somewhat dubious reliability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 6 January 2018 (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.