Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meelis Kubo


 * 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   keep. Judging by the references provided (and indeed consensus here), the subject seems to be notable enough – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Meelis Kubo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Only reference cited is subject's own website. No English-language Google hits by which we can verify anything. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Now suspected COI/spam. User name of original author is identical to that of the domain name of Kubo's web site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable bio. Unless those 5 news hits are truly spectacular coverage. Kevin (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided Most things on the internet are in a language I don't understand, so I cannot really comment on the quality of the sources available. However, there are none in English that I can see. Aiken &#9835; 13:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. I added some references. The references are in Estonian, and you can translate them using http://translate.google.com   -- Eastmain (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suffice it to say that Google's translator leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to Estonian. The best it could do was translate about 60% of the articles. Only the fifth references was even close to being usable for our purposes. There simply isn't enough to prove here that Kubo is anything more than a small-time magician. Moreover, it seems like the author's intent here is to promote Kubo, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first, fourth and fifth of the sources put in the article by Eastmain all provide significant coverage of Kubo, with him being the subject of each article. Concerns about promotion can be dealt with by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I have provided the article with better references but unfortunately they are aslo in Estonian. Miraakel (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears that Kubo's website use a domain name identical to your user name. Are you Kubo, or are you working for him? That would be a conflict of interest and a violation of our policies against promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 12:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have been working for him for some time now. The idea to create this article came from people who are closely related to estonian magic though. Miraakel (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note even though Miraakel is working for Kubo, WP:COI doesn't state that people can't create articles about things with which they have a COI. It is definitely discouraged but if the subject is notable and the article is written neutrally then it shouldn't be a problem. Therefore the aim of this AfD debate is only to determine whether the subject is notable, not what relation the creator has to the subject. Smartse (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, but it "goes to motive," as they say in court. It shows that the original author is essentially promoting someone for whom he works, and does not necessarily have a clear-eyed view of whether or not Kubo is notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Fairly unknown person even in Estonia, but there are few articles about him. Probable WP:COI by creator of the article (see the name of the official website). Image is copyrighted, I marked it for speedy in Commons. -- Sander Säde 09:02, 21 October 2009 (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.