Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Jakowenko

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. I will be happy to undelete and incubate if anyone can find sources to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jakowenko

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not eligible for A7 as it claims significance. A web search turns up no WP:RS, and even if we did find sources to corroborate the claims, I don't think he would meet WP:N in any case. -Zeus-^u|c 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom that this does not meet A7 but the article nonetheless shows no indication of rising to notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment note that nominator tagged this for A7 before I declined the speedy. Will look into more general notability issues. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
neutral More sources are needed, although I had added a few. But if every assertion in the current article were supported by a published reliable source, i would consider this notable. I suspect that offline sources may exit, but can't prove it. Perhaps a case for incubation? DES ^(talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to seem harsh, but isn't that like saying "If this person was written up in the NYT, they would be notable"? Of course they would. The thing is that he hasn't... -Zeus-^u|c 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I rather suspect that all these assertions are in fact true, and that most of them were probably covered in off-line sources. Not the NY times, but still reliable sources. Incubation would allow time for the article creator, or others in a position to find such sources, to do so with less time pressure than an AfD brings. Of course, it is well within policy for any admin, on request, to userfy even a deleted article if the creator or another interested editor intends to try to improv it to deal with the reasons for deletion. This is particularly true when the issue is notability. I am in effect suggesting doing that in advance. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Meets A7, notwithstanding the WP:PUFF. THF (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (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.