Subject fails
WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion.
CycloneYoristalk!21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and
MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest.
SociusMono1976 (
talk)
23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party
deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two
different new
pages...).--
Yaksar(let's chat)23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--
Yaksar(let's chat)00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here
[2] and here
[3]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.
Gronk Oz (
talk)
06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion.
CycloneYoristalk!21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and
MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest.
SociusMono1976 (
talk)
23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party
deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two
different new
pages...).--
Yaksar(let's chat)23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--
Yaksar(let's chat)00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here
[2] and here
[3]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.
Gronk Oz (
talk)
06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply