Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Safran

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Safran[edit]

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

Puffy article with uncited claims, on a person of only regional notability. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on the notability yet, but I cleaned up a lot of the non-neutral language. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Article was created and written by a sock farm; see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creation of sock farm. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a plausible notability claim here that might get him an article if he could be properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG for it, but nothing that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG just because he exists — but the referencing here is parked on primary sources like pieces of his own writing, photographs and the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media that would count as valid support for notability. Also this was created by a banned sockpuppet, so even if his notability could be properly demonstrated by the correct kind of sources, it would still need to be deleted and then recreated from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2018 (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.