Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kuch


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Kuch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsure if this article is notable or not. Very PR. --RickiNickiEdits (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 17.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - While Kush has certainly been in the news and is a public advocate as well as he has some sources from Stuff and One News, I don't think there is enough there to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO as he has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. While he was up for Young New Zealander award, the article is just his name in the list of nominees.  NZFC  (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is more than 50 per cent dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — and while there are certainly a few pieces of reliable source coverage about him shown as well, there aren't enough of those to get him over WP:GNG, because none of them say anything about him that would make him "inherently" notable. If a person doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criterion, but instead you're going for "notable just because some media coverage exists", then it takes more media coverage than this to get him over the bar. And yes, nominator is correct that there's a definite "public relations profile" skew to the writing, suggestive of a possible conflict of interest even if we can't definitively verify that. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2018 (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.