Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Deans


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Deans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is promotional and does not state why this person is notable. Kbabej (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, though I fail to understand the nominator's rationale, there's little in the way of overt promotion and it clearly lists a number of awards and achievements, a clear claim to notability. I moved it from AfC to mainspace because I thought it had a reasonable chance of survival, though I'm not certain how much store we put on each of these awards. At the very least Deans seems to be an exceptional young man. Sionk (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Deans is an interesting young man, but I don't think anything we've seen makes him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He's a motivated high schooler (including making the Wiki page for himself), but I don't see anything beyond that. Also, references 7-14 are actually the same two references. --Kbabej (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, the article was written by a user named "Alex Deans." None of the third-party resources is about him -- he's just in a list with other winners (who don't have WP pages) with little info beyond his name. This guy may be a Wunderkind, but he has failed a NPOV, SLA, and others. LaMona (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a ccomprehensive profile in Macleans, a 14 minute feature about him on Radio Canada, a long profile of him in The Windsor Star and other reports of his feature in Macleans. So "None of the third party sources is about him" is plain wrong. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like LaMona pointed out, however, in most of those sources he is part of a large list of people. In the Macleans article, he's one of twelve, and the other eleven dont have WP pages. --Kbabej (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not having a Wikipedia article is not proof of lack of notability (if that's not too many nots). He was still profiled in depth, not simply listed. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not consider any of these articles to be "comprehensive." They are short, human-interest articles. The Macleans one is 3 short paragraphs; the Windsor Star one is a bit longer, but still pretty light-weight. So "comprehensive" and "long profile" don't ring true for me. Me, I'd say he's worth keeping an eye on for future notability. But delete for now. LaMona (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that if he keeps up this record of achievement he'll be back here again someday under a real notability criterion, but unfortunately as of right now nothing here is a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article (student council at his high school?!?), and the fact that local media might confer a bit of human interest coverage on a local person who gets a local award does not mean they can claim to have passed the WP:GNG loophole. And that's completely leaving aside the fact that this is an WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's actually passed an actual inclusion criterion, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it meet WP:NOTABLE? It doesn't make any claim that satisfies any of our inclusion criteria, and it isn't sourced extensively or non-locally enough to pass WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GNG says absolutely nothing about local sources. The word "local" doesn't appear at any point in GNG or its footnotes. James500 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 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.