Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modestas Mankus (2nd nomination)

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. and salt. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modestas Mankus

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

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

Quite simply, zero coverage of the person apart from two unabashedly puff-piece interviews. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. (I must say that there seems to be a lot of non-notable stuff coming from AfC in the last few days...) NOTE: this was at AfD before, but due to some draft moving shenanigans, I can't tell whether it qualifies for CSD:G4. Erring on the side of caution here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hide discussions with confirmed sockpuppets

Keep Clear sources provided for notability from Huffington Post and Cambridge News. Seems to qualify. More sources could be added but overall seems sufficient enough.User:vanmodhe (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck this vote, as I've blocked the user as a sockmaster who was socking at this AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the puff-piece (i.e., entirely uncritical, by-the-numbers) interviews I mentioned. That's not independent, in-depth coverage... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:: I disagree that those interviews do not count as an independent sources. There are more than several questions that are not "puff-piece" type of questions. User:vanmodhe (talk) 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:RS, interviews are specifically excluded as, well, interviewing the subject creates material that comes directly from the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::: I have read it and there is no mention of interviews. Also, the interviews once again do not come directly from the subject in mention. Yes, the interviewee is interviewing the subject, however, they are allowed to make up their own mind as writers. It's not a press release or a promotional interview. There is no syndication between the two parties. User:vanmodhe (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We try to avoid non-independent, primary sources. It is a primary source because the facts come straight from the subject. "Q: What happened next? A: subject answer." I'm sorry you do not see why that is a problem. It is a very different process than a reporter for a good publication who goes through and verifies what multiple people have said about the same question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::: Interesting, I wouldn't define this as a primary source. If this source was an interview specifically made to be used for this Wikipedia article then yes I would understand but that's not the case and also HuffingtonPost has editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanmodhe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having read through all of the sources there is a clear argument for notability. Firstly, the subject has been interviewed by two well-respected sources and is the core subject of those interviews. Yes, the interviews are not critical of him as a subject, but they do not have to be to prove his notability. Secondly, he has clear achievement in business having founded Our Culture Mag which seems to be a fairly legitimate source as it appears on Google and Apple News. Having Googled his name, he comes up as a musician and entrepreneur which is mentioned in the article. Google News displays dozens of articles written by him for Entrepreneur Magazine and Our Culture Mag, a magazine he founded. Altogether, the subject’s biography could be improved, but I do not see any reason for deletion as of this moment. User:Josephhunz (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I've struck this vote, as the user has been blocked as a sock of User:vanmodhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most business owners, entrepreneurs and creative professionals are not notable. The fact he writes for his own non-notable magazine is of no consequence. Does he satisfy WP:CREATIVE for his writing? No.--Pontificalibus 07:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Closer note: The account Jospehhunz was created the same day it made the post above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those two "interviews" do not represent in-depth coverage and are clearly promotional. The Huffington Post one even contains a link to his crowdfunding campaign! Fails WP:BASIC.--Pontificalibus 07:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article that uses puffed-up weak sources to try to establish notability. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more sock content

Disagree that Huffington Post, Entrepreneur Magazine and Cambridge News are weak sources. Also, promotional articles are posted as such via these sources with appropriate tags. These are clearly not promotional. Also, they are not press releases, syndicated stories or conflicts of interest. All of these sources are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanmodhe (talk • contribs)

That's nice that you disagree, but that's the way it is. Primary sources are weak sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no doubt that he will be back, but currently non notable. scope_creep (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources (more than one) exist, so GNG is satisfied. EnPassant (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

even more sock content

Keep The overall article seems sufficient with reliable secondary sources. Keep. Canislupis0 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck this vote, as the user has been blocked as a sock of User:vanmodhe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Closer note: The account Canislupis0 was created the same day it made the post above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

***Closer note: The account User:Hammersoft is a stalker. Canislupis0 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Further discussion at your talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The biography has been deleted 10 times under Moz5a. Renata (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:vanmodhe, blocked above as a sock, was the creator of this article and the Moz5a articles. Web searches show moz5a is the DJ name of the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods. I did not see that. Yes please salt! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is one of the most excessive instances of miscreation of articles we have seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note this article has already been AfD'd, protected and deleted numerous times, in addition to the ten times noted above for the Moz5a article, and Then there is also Draft:Moz5a that is a sea of red ink. It's time for Salar de Uyuni quantities of salt.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2018 (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.