Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Provost

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Provost

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced vanity page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious biospam, as are the related pages created by a sock account: Life Juice, The Provost Group, Provost Living & Entertainment, Southeast Power, and Benefit Arno, which are all up for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Before PROD tagging it, I made a good-faith search for sources without finding anything at all that met WP:BIO. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced vanity page/bio spam. Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of footnotes with references have been added, but those that are accessible through the web rather strengthen the impression of lack of notability; most of them don't mention Provost and the two that do are trivial mentions. None of the references that I have been able to look at actually verifies the information they are supposed to be sources for - and as for the print sources, some of them are clearly irrelevant (for instance a 2006 source supposed to verify facts about the years after 2006, including the text Provost got his big break in the year 2011 however when he released his first official single Show Stopper). It's not unusual to see enthusiastic article creators adding every minor mention of things that are vaguely related to the subject of the article as references, and I'm assuming that's what is going on here. In any case the references don't appear to be relevant, which is what matters in this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After wading through the list of refs, I agree with that, Bonadea.Kudpung (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability for this subject does not exist. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (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.