Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Fee


 * 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 Deleted (G11) by user Athaenara, 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC). (non-admin closure). Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Fee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Article is a vanity page created by the article's subject (WP:CONFLICT) Allied45 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  08:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep A google search shows that there are a decent number of very reliable independent sources for individual pieces of information in this article, but they are about the dance groups and their productions and often only mention the title subject as founder, creator, producer, etc.  Article currently fails BIO referencing, but a lot of this could be fixed with easily locatable references. While undeclared CONFLICT, my quick looking seems to indicate that a significant amount of material is potentially verifiable.  Aoziwe (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. We read: Which is just how User:Andrew.Fee wrote it, six years ago. Too much autohagiography. Would anyone who thinks WP would benefit from an article on Fee consider improving this article? -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a very promotional autobio that is a case of WP:PROMO. I've nominated it for G11 as it seems to qualify. If the subject is notable it would be better started fresh by an uninvolved editor without the autobio infection, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (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.