- 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Alex Aïnouz
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alex Aïnouz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is not required to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, as per WP:BASIC "[p]eople who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." The subject of the article meets the criteria in that they have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Thanks.-- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 17jiangz1 is correct and there is sufficient coverage to justify this article.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note I have expanded the article and have added three more references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Cullen and work done on the page, well sourced. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Alex Aïnouz
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alex Aïnouz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is not required to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria, as per WP:BASIC "[p]eople who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." The subject of the article meets the criteria in that they have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Thanks.-- 17jiangz1 ( talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep 17jiangz1 is correct and there is sufficient coverage to justify this article.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it 18:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note I have expanded the article and have added three more references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Cullen and work done on the page, well sourced. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- 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.