Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Drapal


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrej Drapal

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This biography has no independent sources offering significant coverage. At the time I write this, it has 11 cites. I'll go through them - #1 and #3 are trivial mentions. #2,#8,#10, and #11 are all written by the biography subject and are not independent. #4 is an article about political lobbying that quoted him a couple of times, but doesn't offer significant biographical details. #5,#6,#7, and #9 are documents published by organizations he is associated with mentioning his name, not independent. I believe this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO and should be deleted. Side note, this appears to be a slightly altered copy of the subject's autobiography from Draft:Andrej Drapal which was copied to the mainspace without attribution. I noticed it when the COI editor began linking it in various articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Philosophy,  and Slovenia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, independent sources are the first condition for GNG. I did some quick search but could not find anything substantial. --Tone 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete given the lack of independent sources and reliable coverage. Appears to be a autobiographical vanity article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did an in depth search for sources and coverage myself and didn’t find anything that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. If the subject passed either of these, there would be a stronger case for keeping, but as it stands the article should be deleted. Shawn Teller (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2023 (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.