Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil uzelac

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emil uzelac

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

Unable to establish notability, fails WP:CREATIVE, no independent references, contested prod WWGB (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references contained in Emil Uzelac are 100% accurate and notable. I would like to learn more about your fact that the page is not WP:CREATIVE. Emil Uzelac "plays" big part in Open Source community since 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Web search for ("emil uzelac") turned up lots of in-house WordPress links, but no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources. Searching Google News and Google News Archives for the same terms also yielded no evidence of notability. Delete per failure to meet WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Emil Uzelac but the WordPress Developer, that would be the main reason why there are so many WordPress links. If you kindly search for "Emil Uzelac WordPress" you will find links to:

WPMU - Independent Site
WP Tavern - Independent Site

Having non-WordPress related would be if we search for Wikipedia and don't get Wiki articles first. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 January 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, you guys are set on this, delete, no more questions or anything else I can do to keep this page alive. Please let me know if you can. I have not included that Emil Uzelac is descendant of Emil Uzelac would that make any difference at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmk (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for allowing to continue discussion and for Relisted ·ukmk· 18:21, 19 January 2013 (CST)

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate that the subject meets general inclusion criteria, or that specific for creative people. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Thank you for additional information Whpq. Few moments ago I checked your links and could not find anything that does not meet the general inclusion criteria. ·ukmk· 19:58, 21 January 2013 (CST)
- Comment - None of the sources in the article as useable for establishing notability:
  1. is a stats page and is not coverage about Emil Uzelac
  2. is a post by Uzelac, not independent
  3. is his profile page, not independent
  4. is a link to his responsive theme, not independent
  5. is a listing of popular themes on wordpress and simply lists his theme without even mentioning his name so clearly not significant coverage about him
  6. is somebody's blog and is not a reliable source
  7. is another blog and is not a reliable source
  8. simply mentions his name and is not significant coverage about him
  9. have no idea what this is even supposed to prove and is certainly not significant coverage about him
- so in total there are no usable sources -- Whpq (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without independent (and in this case more important reliably published) sources that cover the subject in non-trivial detail, he does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2013 (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.