Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Zahm
Makes no claim of notability that would satisfy  (which does ''not'' confer an automatic presumption of notability on backroom consultants), and isn't sourced to nearly enough |reliable source coverage to get him over  instead — of the four sources here, #2 and #3 both just passingly namecheck his basic ''existence'' rather than providing any ''substantive'' coverage of him, and #4 is an invalid . So #1 is the only one that counts for squat, but it still provides barely more than a blurb's worth of information about him personally — so it is ''not'' substantive enough to carry him over GNG all by itself. As usual, Wikipedia is ''not'' a place where anybody gains an ''entitlement'' to keep an article just because they ''exist'', if the sourcing and substance just aren't there. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he accomplishes something that actually satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion rule, but absolutely nothing written or sourced here does so as things stand right ''now
— User:Bearcat, 15:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (Wikipedia:Notability)