Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio
First, I understand the impetus to remove sources one feels are clouding the issue, however, in this instance, at least two solid references were removed (''Wired'' and ''Physics of the Future''), especially after another editor ({{u|MelanieN}}) has referred to them as their basis for a "keep" !vote. In addition, as one of the editors who worked on the article pointed out, the other citations were there to verify facts, not to show notability, and as such, trivial mentions are fine. There are so many mentions of him in reliable sources (hundreds, after you get through all the false positives, particularly the Lifeboat blog), that it makes sorting through them tedious, but the two now deleted references alone meet . But more importantly, he clearly passes , which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". While many of the sources are only brief mentions, they are not simply mentioning him, but mentioning him as "an expert... futurist" (USA TODAY-Oct 29, 2014), "a research fellow at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif., and a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging ..." (New York Times -May 4, 2011), " ...quoted one of our expert participants, Jamais Cascio from the Institute for the Future" (GreenBiz), "a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future" (HuffPo 05/04/2015), etc
— User:onel5969, 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:BASIC (Wikipedia:Notability)