Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monk Giel


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Monk Giel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is at heart a violation of not news. The tussel between the Belgian juvenial authorities and this person and his mother was a news incident, not an incident that made him notable. Thus this also violates 1 event issues, but the event is not notable enough for an article. Beyond this, the sourcing is horrendous. At present that article relies on facebook and twitter more than anything else, not reliable sources. The other two sources I can't quite figure out, but they may not be reliable. I was able to find another source that might be reliable, but nothing to show this rises above a news issue for a 15-year-old. Giel is now 18 or 19, but no one seems to have taken note of his actions in the last 3 years. Being a Buddhist monk is not a claim to notability, and the stand off with the Belgian authorities is not enough to create notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, the article has been tagged for BLP concerns of not having enough sources for a while. We need to reliably source material in biographies of living people, especially ones who are fairly young and have no strong claim to being public figures, and there is no sign of sourcing here in some cases outside of facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Like the nominator I'm unable to fully evaluate the 1st article reference. However one source is not sufficient for notability.  The other sources are either not reliable or brief.  Searching finds nothing significant.  Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO.  Gab4gab (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete paucity of RS. Dloh cierekim  04:28, 5 May 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.