Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mankuta
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. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Mankuta[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Jonathan Mankuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-written vanity article by someone completely unnotable. samrolken (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable per WP:ENT, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, original article had a very WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI promo vibe, but following cleanup notability hasn't been established. MuffledThud (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no opinion as yet about notability, but I must point out that this nomination violates both WP:AGF and, more seriously, WP:BLP by accusing Mr Mankuta, without presenting any evidence, of writing a vanity article about himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could only find 3 articles in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Due to non-notability, no significant coverage in any reliable sources. samrolken (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate !vote stricken: the nomination already calls for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete for unnotability, but certainly not per the incivil nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2009 (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.