Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel DeNiazi


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Daniel DeNiazi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability guidelines. A google search for him returns minimal results. The 'newsmagazine' listed has almost negligible traffic, with a global ranking of #2,864,335, seems to be a personal project rather than an actual retail news outlet.

Norway Flag 21,757 Ies (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - this sums it up. No matter how he spells his name, the subject still isn't notable. - Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Has written some articles but nothing to show notability. Has no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. 2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could not find any reliable, independent coverage of this person or his website, nor signs that such exists. A couple of passing mentions and links, and some posts by him in comment sections, but that's it. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm disagree. You have to check on publishment in paper. If we are going to follow the Wikipedias policy, its standing that sources is one of the most important tools to prove. I hope you as an administrator has read this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

He has been mention in web and newspaper (on paper/web). One of the article in Wikipedias policy said that the person can have external links publish, since this person is an official person. He has own website, are on television, In France, Norway and Russia. The external links has to prove you.

You write: "No matter how he spells his name, the subject still isn't notable." - How can you know when people from other countries knows him? And also sounds that you do not care about the sources or the person. How can you say that he is not a notable? The article is a notable, because the Wikipedias policy says this: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". This is about a reliable person, not a fiction.

Surce: http://danielniazi.com/biography/ (notable (according the policy of Wikipedia) Publishment (date, number / Magazines/newspapers)

The Bradcasting of Norway, NRK has sent LIVE with him some times (and have programs with him).

It also standing: "This policy page specifies the community standards related to the organization, life cycle, maintenance of, and adherence to policies, guidelines, and related pages.". If you aree administrator of Wikipedia, you have also a responsibility to prove that he is not reliable person.

I will recommended you to read Wikipedias policy and guidelines. It will help you as a good administrator.

If you want me to send me more links and sources to prove that he is a reliable person, I will do it for pleasure! :) --FreizWiki (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete All the links in the article are either to the subjects website or to articles on their not significant paper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's correct. Wikipedia remove the links from media about this person earlier. And I was really surprise about it when Wikipedia remove about this person who are mentioned in norwegian media on web. His earlier name is "Daniel Niazi" Wikipedia just remove and do not see Daniel as an reliable person.

The link to the article he has written, is a prove that he has written about the reliable persons, Cecilie Svendsen and Scott Fivelson. The Wikipedia is not interested to have am article about reliable person and that is violations to the Wikipedias policy. I have follow Wikipedias policy and guiddelines, and the administrator is not interested in these sources.

Here is the links | sources remove (and continue ask for sources):
 * https://hnytt.no/2017/03/01/sveiobladet-satser-na-pa-magasin/ (hnytt.no Tabloid/Daily newspaper)
 * https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/grunder-vil-lofte-fram-sveio-i-media-1.12832714 (NRK Broadcastin)
 * https://www.nrk.no/hordaland/starter-magasin-i-sveio-1.13403248 (NRK BROADCAST)
 * http://www.sveiobladet.net/det-er-pennen-som-skaper-lokaldemokratiet/ (Sveiobladet | written by Randi Amland, Elise G. Sivertsen and Robert C. Frankmann)
 * http://danielniazi.com/biography/ (Biography | Official Website)

There is magazine cases about Daniel DeNiazi in paper. I have also send in to the administrators of Wikipedia, and they are not interested. When I follow Wikipedias guidelines and policy, I hope Wikipedia see that the sources is about a reliable person. I can also send you a screenshot from the magazines. There is a lot of them - And in the earlier in Forbes - in the magazine about the project in USA. New Daily newspaper that are going to be etablished in U.S and Ukraine. Hertz Gazeta.

You can also read about the filmdirector Cato Manuel Ekrene that has got job in Hollyood (LA) from Hollywod-writer Scott Fivelson. Cato Manuel EKrene won Beverly hills Screenplay in februar 2016 his coming film «Mango».

Read it here: http://www.sveiobladet.net/fikk-regi-jobb-hollywood-film/ (Written by Daniel DeNiazi)

Cato Manuel Ekrene: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5574080/reference (UMDb) Scott Fivelson: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007110/reference

Something more? I have respect to the Wikipedias policy and guidelines, but the administrators have to follow them too! --FreizWiki (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The HNYTT and second NRK articles are usable, but they are not substantial or sufficient. The others are not usable for notability. The usable sources say that he's started a community newspaper for the town Sveio, right? The editor of a small-town magazine/website with a circulation in the 4,000-6,000 range is not likely to be notable without substantial sources. They support that he exists and started a community project, but do not establish WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. These source are not deep enough. They are minor, local, and primarily about Sveiobladet as a project, not DeNiazi as a person. I have no idea why you're bringing up other people. Why would that matter? Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sveiobladet is just the name of the newspaper. The newspaper is branched on Haugaland, Stord, Sveio, Haugesund, Karmøy, Tysvaer and Fitjar. Article about Daniel DeNIazi, is about him and the sources about what he i known for. And the reasons I bring the article up to other people, is that he is known for the articles about them. I have also mention these people, because Wikipedia do not believe that Daniel is an reliable person. Wikkipedia do not follow their owns policy and guidelines.

I do not understand why Daniel DeNiazi is not an interested person on Wikipedia when he has his name on TV, in newspapers, magazines for his etablishment. He is an journalist and have work as a journalist in 8 years. He has worked in NRK, Sunnhordland (newspaper), Vestavind (Newspaper).

Why do you references to website in te circulation in the 4.000-6.000. ANd talk about the he is the editor in a small newspaper, when Sveiobladet is a daily newspaper?? NRK and Hnytt are not usable. They are sourcess that follow the Wikipedias policy and guidelines.

With all respect! When I have prove the Wikipedia that he is reliable person. How can I prove Wikipedia? I follow your policy and guidelines. You can search on Cato Manuel Ekrene. You will not find so many articles about him. Daniel DeNiazi has a results (if you search Daniel Niazi) that is more than Cato Manuel Ekrene and is more mentioned in magazine then Cato and Scott together.

SOURCES: https://www.facebook.com/DanNappen

So Wikipedia do looking for results on Google? As a researcher and Wikipedia-author, I understand that Wikipedia is more about the person not the facts! --FreizWiki (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be rude, but I really do not understand a lot of what you are saying. For this article to be saved, we need reliable sources of substance which are about him as a person. Those sources must be independent of him. His website is not independent. Facebook is not independent. An interview with him is not independent. An interview with him in the newspaper he edits is definitely not independent. Also, those sources must explain why he is notable. Having worked as a journalist for eight years (since he was 17 or 18, I guess?) doesn't matter. Many people work in jobs for a long time, but that doesn't make them notable. You say he is "known for" articles about other people... who knows him for that? Are there sources about these articles? Great! Where are they? If not, it doesn't matter, because he's just doing a job. Are you suggesting he's more notable than Ekrene? Perhaps Cato Manuel Ekrene should be improved or deleted also, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So what is reliable sources? I've just follow the Wikipedias guidelines and policy. I just references to the article. When Daniel Niazi has a good hit and is known for his etablshments. He have also use Daniel Niazi, Daniel Nappen and Daniel Jacobsen. I understand of course why do you not find the results of his work.

You will find the links: http://danielniazi.com/press/

Why he change his name - I do not know, but he has been in magazine with the name Daniel DeNiazi. Earlier he use Daniel Niazi. My fault that i do not come with this information earlier. But he has been mention in media. I hope you will understand more about it. If he had used Daniel DeNiazi I will udnerstood more why he was on Wikipedia few years ago. How Can i prove this? We have fysical prove; magazine, paper.... I am sorry I come up with this article. I thought Wikipedia was looking for reliable people, but I am not sure now. What am I goig to do? to prove this? --FreizWiki (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look more carefully at WP:JOURNALIST. We're not looking for examples of his work, we are looking for coverage of his work. Not all reliable sources are useful for establishing notability. DeNiazi's articles may be reliable for other articles, but that doesn't make him notable as a journalist. Let me say that again another way: A source can be reliable, but still not establish notability, because notability guidelines require secondary coverage of substance.
 * I followed some of those press links at his own website. One was a dead link, Some of the others didn't appear to mention him at all (is he... in one of the photos? Not a good sign), and a third was a profile of him as a blogger. That profile is usable, but definitely on the weak side, especially since the article currently mentions nothing about his blogging activities. I'm underwhelmed. Wikipedia sources do not have to be online, but they do still have to meet other requirements. A list of articles which may or may not mention him is useless for this. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails to establish the notability of its subject. And bear in mind that it is a question of notability, not reliability. Whether the subject is reliable has no bearing on whether it meets general notability guidelines (GNG). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as my nom. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:47, 18 March 2017 (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.