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.
A ways away from meeting
WP:GNG, does not appear to meet
WP:NAUTHOR. Provided sources do not comprise independent coverage of the subject, an internet search did not turn up additional sources. signed, Rosguilltalk00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-Draftify - notability based off being cited/ interviewed by state level radio stations in order to reinforce claims. However yes, per the
disclosure, I did take the article up from the subject at their advertisement based off the percieved notability — IVORKDiscuss01:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that IVORK did not post a paid contribution disclosure until after I inquired about their motivation for working on the article—
this is when they posted the disclosure, and
this is when I queried them on their talk page. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
02:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being interviewed by radio stations is not an accepted indication of notability. The principal basis for notability is significant coverage of the subject--here, Mr Livas--in reliable sources. We don't needs things written or said by Mr Livas, we need things like newspaper articles that are about him. So far as I can see, those don't exist. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
02:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two reasons the radio interviews do not establish Livas's notability: 1) they are interviews with the subject of the article and hence not
independent coverage; 2) the interviews with
4BC and
2GB aren't even about Livas, instead focusing on the
Notre-Dame fire. The other sources in the article do not provide significant coverage, and like nom I couldn't find any other sources that would establish notability. Clearly fails
WP:GNG. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
02:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete interviews about another subject does not make someone notable. I'm quite disappointed that an experienced editor like IVORK would take cash to create and defend an article that does not pass
WP:BIO.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - as non-notable. While interviews can be used to cite information, the do zip when it comes to establishing notability as they are
WP:PRIMARY. Without in-depth, independent coverage in a
WP:RS, the topic is a clear
WP:BIO failure.
SamHolt6 (
talk)
13:25, 18 August 2019 (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.
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.
A ways away from meeting
WP:GNG, does not appear to meet
WP:NAUTHOR. Provided sources do not comprise independent coverage of the subject, an internet search did not turn up additional sources. signed, Rosguilltalk00:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-Draftify - notability based off being cited/ interviewed by state level radio stations in order to reinforce claims. However yes, per the
disclosure, I did take the article up from the subject at their advertisement based off the percieved notability — IVORKDiscuss01:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Note that IVORK did not post a paid contribution disclosure until after I inquired about their motivation for working on the article—
this is when they posted the disclosure, and
this is when I queried them on their talk page. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
02:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being interviewed by radio stations is not an accepted indication of notability. The principal basis for notability is significant coverage of the subject--here, Mr Livas--in reliable sources. We don't needs things written or said by Mr Livas, we need things like newspaper articles that are about him. So far as I can see, those don't exist. --
Mkativerata (
talk)
02:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two reasons the radio interviews do not establish Livas's notability: 1) they are interviews with the subject of the article and hence not
independent coverage; 2) the interviews with
4BC and
2GB aren't even about Livas, instead focusing on the
Notre-Dame fire. The other sources in the article do not provide significant coverage, and like nom I couldn't find any other sources that would establish notability. Clearly fails
WP:GNG. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
02:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete interviews about another subject does not make someone notable. I'm quite disappointed that an experienced editor like IVORK would take cash to create and defend an article that does not pass
WP:BIO.
Pichpich (
talk)
03:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - as non-notable. While interviews can be used to cite information, the do zip when it comes to establishing notability as they are
WP:PRIMARY. Without in-depth, independent coverage in a
WP:RS, the topic is a clear
WP:BIO failure.
SamHolt6 (
talk)
13:25, 18 August 2019 (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.