Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Marszewski

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Marszewski

[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)

A businessperson and man-about-town in Chicago who, I believe, fails WP:BASIC. He gets hits in Chicago-area press, but I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV, in independent sources, of him personally. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe a wrong-headed criterion, but a biography authored and sourced by a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is probably compliant with Wikipedia policies for inclusion. I for one feel like the {edit} systemic bias (not attributing to the nominator) {end edit} against regionally-noted personalities is unfair. Metro Chicago has as many people as the nation of Hungary -- why wouldn't we say that "local" coverage across Chicago media is just as noteworthy as coverage of a famous Hungarian, but limited to Hungary-based media? - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AppleBsTime, Fair enough, but please don't accuse me of bias. This was a good faith nomination, which you are of course free to dispute by pointing to sources that cast doubt on my view. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit above. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have the truly broad coverage beyond what is local coverage to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I started this article. All of the Chicago-based articles are acceptable sources and the following articles do not come from Chicago-based publications and demonstrate notability across fields of design, art, food, brewing, publishing and so forth over the course of many years -- notable enough for several references in the New York Times, one in Bloomberg, one in AIGA. I believe that these represent "truly broad coverage":

Victor Grigas (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victorgrigas, The first of these sources is an interview and the rest look to be passing mentions of Marszewski in the context of one of his businesses. If notability is established, I think it would have to be on the basis of the more detailed Chicago-specific coverage of him in particular. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Many of the sources in the article showcase Marszewski's work, and there are other sources that profile Marszewski or his career including [1][2][3]. Since he has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources, he passes GNG and is WP:N. Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources are from Chicago-area publications. I know individuals aren't subject to WP:AUD, but it seems a little strange to me to rely on local coverage for notability in this way. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's odd using local coverage. As far as I know, there's isn't a policy or guideline that discourages local coverage to showcase notability. If there is can it be posted below? I think as long as the sources are WP:RS and pass WP:GNG then they can be used to show notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I candidly admit I don't have a policy or guideline handy to support my argument. My point is just that people from City X often get coverage in City X's local press, and that we should think twice before considering such coverage evidence of notability in itself. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 27 October 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.