Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Boulanger


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Boulanger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. One apparently non notable book by an author who does not appear to be otherwise notable. Additionally, notability is not inherited. Safiel (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional nomination Monte Boulanger which, prior to my redirecting it, was identical to the main article. Monte is the real given name of the subject while Alex is a pen name. Safiel (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete No evidence of notability. Poorly or improperly sourced BLP content removed per BLP policy. The two sources are 1)a dead link supposedly to a primary source and 2) a irrelevant mention of a supposed relative with no evidence of purported relationship. Editor asserting original authorship and identifying as the subject requests deletion. I am reposting speedy tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Objecting to Speedy delete Conditions of A7 not satisfied. No indication that any private information was disclosed. The objecting user/author/subject needs to take his objections to the BLP noticeboard for an administrator to review. Article does NOT meet the requirements for removal by author and nobody has the right to demand removal of content from Wikipedia, unless it is clearly shown to be an invasion of privacy and again that determination needs to be made at the BLP noticeboard. Again, I object to speedy deletion but support deletion under the regular process for the reasons I gave above. Safiel (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete both. Monte Boulanger and Alex Boulanger appear to be attempts at self promotion and there is very little in the way of biographical information on the subject of the article. In any event there should be only one article per person. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I objected to the use of speedy deletion but I am in favor of deletion going through the AfD process. Winner 42 Talk to me!  21:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As this AfD is in process, perhaps speedy isn't the way to go. Whatever an experienced admin decides is fine with me. Unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content is subject to immediate removal, going to BLPN is not required by policy quite the opposite. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined the speedy, because it will be better decided here. I was able to confirm the existence of the book in WorldCat but it is held in only one library.  DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this author even comes closing to passing WP:AUTHOR. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly fails AUTHOR. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As an author, his book is pretty non-notable, as I can't see where it's been covered or reviewed in any places that would be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia. When it comes to the other stuff, his relation to Ernest Tubb doesn't do anything since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and his position on the Board of Directors doesn't really do anything for notability either. He's just not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:06, 17 November 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.