Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrien Burel


 * 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   Speedy delete g7, author request, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Adrien Burel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. CSD tag was challenged. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how many sources are needed. Also, are all news websites deemed credible as well as e-books? Zackmorris5r (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * * reply: Please see WP:GNG to get you started.  Also, please sign with four tildes, not just three, to leave your sig. cheers &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it's admirable how hard Mr. Burel has worked to overcome his past, I just can't find where he's been the focus of independent and reliable sources. Most of what I've found has been WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it is a source that was released by either Burel, his school, or other places that are associated with him. I can't really find any evidence of the awards/accolades (going to call it just "award" from here on out) that he's won. This doesn't mean that he may not have been praised for his work or that he hasn't won a contest of some sort, but this almost always means that the award would not be considered to be something that would give notability on Wikipedia. The thing is, most awards aren't considered to be the type that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and I'd say that less than 2% of any award given in any category for any given thing would be the type that would give notability. While there are some rare exceptions, most of the time if an award isn't something that a non-primary source would report on, then it's considered to not be something that would give notability. Now as far as other news sources go, it all depends on the source. Not all news outlets are made equal or considered to be usable for notability and whether or not the source is considered to be usable also depends on what it's reporting. Brief, WP:TRIVIAL mentions of Burel in passing would not really be considered usable and if the article is a reprint of a press release, then it can't be considered to be a reliable source either. There's a lot more to this, so the best thing for User:Zackmorris5r to do would be to post the links here or on the article so we can take a look at them. As far as the article as a whole goes, it's ultimately written like it is a personal or fan page for Burel. We almost never list sections of books that a person enjoys unless that aspect of a person has received so much media attention that it'd merit a mention. The same thing goes for political or personal ideologies- unless that has been covered in a reliable source that is independent of the individual or their representatives, there's no reason to list it. Saying that WP:ITSUSEFUL to the article or helps show a different side of the person isn't a very good argument for inclusion because we're not really meant to be all inclusive of every aspect of an individual and adding all of this feels like it's kind of a WP:SOAPBOX for Burel and his personal opinions. That's why the page comes across as WP:PROMOTIONAL and as kind of the page is being used as Burel's own personal website or Facebook page. I'm sorry, but Burel just isn't notable enough for an entry and to be honest, I'm actually kind of surprised that this hasn't been speedied as promotion. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading TokyoGirl's response and the link that Gaff has included I realize that this page is not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will continue to work to improve it according to WP guidelines. I ask that it be deleted and I will retain a local copy until I can find sources to back up all the info. Thanks 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmorris5r (talk • contribs)
 * Deelte fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not promotional, but this article clearly is. EricSerge (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2014 (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.