Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneed


 * 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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Seneed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any evidence of this person existing, aside from the FB page. Zero evidence of notability and is an unsourced BLP. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG. I could not locate any additional reelable sources. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under A7, there is not the slightest claim of significance in either "Seneed is a famous nepali Kollywood playback singer" or the updated "Seneed is a Top nepali hacker in the world" . Comparing the name in the infobox "Seneed (Deenes) Acharya" with the names of the now sock blocked editors  and  this is just an autobio. — Sam Sailor 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per A7, I see no credible claim of significance. GABgab 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The A1/A3 tagging was off: with Infobox musical artist looking like this   there was enough info to identify the page as a BLP. The sock removed the speedy, and   BLPPROD. But BLPPROD only applies when the article contains no sources in any form.  correctly removed the BLPPROD but then  saying "No evidence of notability." Nom then  with   using Twinkle, but it should just have been the bare proposed deletion endorsed. Three minutes later, the endorsed PROD gets  with this nomination. The article is typical autobio stuff probably written in good faith by a young person who knows Wikipedia is free to edit for everyone, but knows nothing about our inclusion criteria. And it should have been tagged with A7 to begin with. — Sam Sailor 20:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Sam I'll note that the A1/A3 tagging was when the article did not have anything more than a mostly blank infobox. It was removed after the user added info that made the A1/A3 tagging irrelevant, which I do not object to, I agree with you that A7 would also have been appropriate and I should have added it. The BLP prod of mine was I admit a mistake, as I did not see the facebook reference in the infobox until afterwards, and I decided to bring it here once I did notice the mistake. Apologies for the confusion, and I'll write a note explaining on the creator's talk page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes count as content (and it was not mostly blank), so A3 was not appropriate anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the user has been banned as a sock now, so no point in me clarifying anything for them at this point, unfortunately. I should have simply A7ed this from the beginning. Oh well, live and learn.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 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.