Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew nisker

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 delete. Salting both this page and Andrew Nisker. -- Scott (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew nisker[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. PROD removed by creator without explanation, this person doesn't meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete a single of the five or six refs is about this person. The others 404 or mention him in passing. I'd be more inclined to do some work on finding more refs if it were not so patently obvious that the article is a COI job (standard m.o. - SPA with 10 edits, creates article, includes photo which evidences close connection of writer to written-about): whereas he /may/ have some sort of notability, I'm not inclined to waste my time trying to work out what is real and what is self-aggrandising PR fluff in the current article. Better by far to delete the whole thing and, if he is notable, trust that an honest person will add a new article in the fullness of time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a twice–delete (G5 and G11) article at the correct capitalization article (Andrew Nisker)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as recreation of a deleted article by an editor with exactly enough edits to get autoconfirmed status before posting this fully formatted 11kb+ article on their 11th edit. Unambiguous WP:PROMO. Again. Bakazaka (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The improper capitalisation is particularly unimpressive. COI issues, breaches WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no sources that would show that this passes WP:NBIO. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and if it is being recreating then salt too. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The body content is literally identical to the version that was deleted in 2017 — which had been flagged as paid editing by a PR flack, thus suggesting that the same thing might be happening here as well — but the referencing is even weaker. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they and their work technically verify as existing — it is an encyclopedia, on which certain specific markers of notability have to be achieved for an article to become earned. There are certainly potentially valid claims of notability here, in that there are enough unsourced review quotes to suggest that he might pass WP:GNG on critical attention to his films, but they're so wrapped up in advertorial bumf that it's difficult to sort out what's a legitimate notability claim and what's self-promoting fluff. In order to actually be kept, this article would have to be rewritten literally from scratch, in a much more neutral and objective tone and making much more effort to properly cite reliable sources. So salt both this and the properly capitalized original title as well — if somebody wants to take a stab at rewriting a proper article that makes a legitimate and properly sourced case for his notability, then they can do that in draftspace and submit it for AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 2 January 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.