Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Øssur Johannesen


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Øssur Johannesen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of an artist, musician and poet, which makes no strong claim of notability per our inclusion criteria for any of those endeavours, and which is relying entirely on blogs, primary sources and event listings without showing any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media. In addition, there are some sensitive WP:BLP claims in here about mental illness and drug abuse, which are entirely unsourced. As always, a creative professional is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- RS coverage, verifying something that would actually get him over WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC, must be present to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Bearcat is correct, all the claims regarding the artist's personal life are completely unsourced and put Wikipedia in a difficult position regarding BLP. The sources cited are shaky too: the last two references aren't really sources, reference 3 doesn't back up any of the claims cited, reference 4 is just a list of Faroese artists from a blog, and reference 6 is an advert for a concert at which Johannesen appeared. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Several things: 1 is that the article is currently still advertorial and (2) is that overall article still has nothing convincing for the applicable notability, at least now and (3) is that the sources are not all convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.