Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Krizek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Krizek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Asides the WP:COI with the article creator and article subject, I just cannot see subject of article having in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was not finished adding sources to article- added 9 new sources today. Emarias22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I appreciate the addition of more references, the subject still does not meet the general notability guidelines, as none of the references cited meet all three criteria: significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject:
  • U.S. Census: Not significant coverage
  • Classmates.com: Neither reliable nor significant
  • Congressional record (both House and Senate versions): Not significant coverage
  • Library of Congress interview: Not significant coverage
  • Runner's World: Not significant coverage
  • Asian American Press: Not independent (it's a press release)
  • Mount Vernon Gazette: The closest of all provided sources to meeting the criteria, but it's only a local newspaper
  • Christian Relief Services: Not independent
My search has not uncovered any better sources either. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (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.