Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Naleski

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Naleski

[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)

non-notable musician, no sources in Russian or English, only sources in this article are unreliable or generic listings. Time to put this to rest finally. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turns up social media, youtube etc., No independent RS making this person non-notable JW 1961 Talk 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - autobio of young filmmaker not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Credits so far are graphic designer on a low-notability TV series, and Foley artist on a notable film. No significant coverage online in reliable sources, and the article is poorly cited with self-published sources: IMDB, Twitter, AllMusic, the page of an organisation he works with. Article has been speedy-deleted several times already under a few names, by this nearly single-purpose account: James Naleski, James Paul (record producer), and even an attempted overwrite of James Paul. WP:TOOSOON at best. Captain Calm (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per all of the above Spiderone 18:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify A couple of WP:RS/WP:IS have been cited. The subject misses WP:GNG. As with most living, young people, I prefer draftification to deletion. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is paid for spam, draftspace is for potential articles, not an indefinite holding area for spammy garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always feel that for young/working people with some indication of WP:TOOSOON, the better response is draftification. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is inherently flawed and problematic. By that logic anyone who has an interest in the arts is "too soon". Most people aren't notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting BLPs about individuals that have no coverage or verification just in hopes one day they may become notable. Praxidicae (talk)

Not sure where you get the notion that everyone can be "too soon". For this subject, I am not the only commenter on this AfD who feels this subject is "too soon" — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 22:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreliable sources, no evidence of notability — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sites like IMDb, Twitter and a blank Allmusic page does not contribute to notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (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.