Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matīss Akuraters

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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matīss Akuraters[edit]

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

Created by single-purpose account Plasticwords (talk · contribs), possible conflict of interest. Notability per WP:NMG seems questionable. bender235 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with a single purpose account creating an article as a significant percentage of our articles are created by such accounts. I could have been called a single purpose account at the time I finished my first article, as could many other prolific editors. This article asserts notability and includes references. I would defer to the opinion of a Latvian speaking editor regarding the quality of the references and the availability of additional references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of him, famous mom doesn't warrant an article ~~Xil (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there seems to be just about enough coverage in reliable sources for notability, though this is a borderline case. I would note that 'never heard of him', above, is a poor argument for deletion - what matters is whether the sources exist. Robofish (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (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.