Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kingdon

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. Tone 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kingdon

[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)

If the gentleman is truly notable then there would be references easily available that are about him rather than by him. Blogposts by him do nothing to verify his notability. Nor do interviews with him or a shedload of press releases. WP:ADMASQ and fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was completely reworked by a single-purpose editor just hours before the AfD. The page has been restored including all of the reliable sources and proper encyclopedic tone that was removed by that editor. The AfD was quick to be placed before checking the recent history of the page, (which raises some questions about the unusual timing) and its current state meets WP:GNG 50.24.119.73 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are assessed on their merits, not on their history. Please do not cast aspersions on other editors. A major tenet here is to assume good faith. Please never fail to do so. It is sufficient to offer a policy based opinion to delete or keep. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who edits from the local library, I appreciate the thoroughness Fiddle Faddle brings to this and I agree with above, but it looks like the poor promotional editing was limited to a single editor. Going through the history, I see other editors have removed promo edits and added pretty standard information for a BLP. The latest round of edits were very poorly executed no doubt but tone can be cleaned up, so the issue here is notability. The reverted version addresses the question of notability laid out here along with the issue with references. 47.218.244.74 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been subject to a lot of poor promotional editing, I suggest people glance through the article history. —JBL (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate Jason Kingon. His AI is responsible for the continue devolution and soul crushing nature of the coding industry. The rise of AI, and the eliminatioin of by hand tracking of money laundering, has led to the trillions of dollars sloshing around the financial system by corrupt actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.3.217 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would clarify whether your opinion is to keep or delete the article, and the policy rationale you have for either opinion, pease? Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 27 September 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.