Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulius Stankevicius

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Stankevicius

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Paulius Stankevicius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of importance. I have a degree, I founded a small consultancy, I wrote some articles, I wrote a book. BrigadierG (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]] are enough to establish notability.
102.91.4.74 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it pass GNG as Google search shows multiple independent sources with significant coverage.
DXdy FX (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked the new sources presented by the IP user and added to the article by DXdy FX. Irish Tech News and AI For Developing Countries Forum are not reliable sources. The Business Insider and Yahoo Finance sources are press releases about the subject person's company, not even about the person himself. I can still only see one usable GQ source I have previously founded in this discussion, and do not think it would be sufficient to pass GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paulius_Stankevicius&oldid=1233983247"