Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criss Blaziny

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. Let me know if anyone wants to work on it. Courcelles (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Blaziny[edit]

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

No sources indicate notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comes up in the linked GNews search above, but I'm not convinced it represents nontrivial coverage in a reliable source. I searched a library database (which, admittedly, would probably not have Romanian sources), but was not able to find any sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say probably not. First, the article merely tells us he launched a video clip, which isn't especially notable and could be for promotional/press release purposes. Second, apropo.ro seems at or even below the reliability threshold. It's not a serious news site, more of an entertainment news aggregator that has quite a bit of self-published material as well. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate. I was going to close this "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" but I don't feel comfortable doing that with an unsourced BLP. Recommend incubation or delete without prejudice to recreation with sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2010 (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.