Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vinzelts

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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Vinzelts

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

This article was nominated for deletion by its own creator earlier today (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof. Vinzelts), but no reason was given for the deletion, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. However, after reviewing the article myself, I find that the subject's notability has not been clearly established. The subject is described as a peace activist, musician, and scientist, but the sources provided appear to be links to pages on the web sites of organizations with which he is affiliated, a press release, a YouTube channel, and a broken link. No independent reliable sources have been provided, nor have I been able to find any good sources myself. If the subject really is notable, more would need to be done to establish that under WP:BIO. But based on the current content, I would recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an amazing total of 4 hits on google. If they were decent sources, I would vote keep, but all my searches turn up nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sockpuppet contributions. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep subject has already made Diplomatic appearances as one of the prominent Youth Leader of the United Nations, theses are the young People who are doing amazing Jobs like Malala and other young activists, by sacrificing their lives and time in transforming the lives of youth in the world unlike other dormant youth, and motivating a lot of young people to lead Change in the Society. Thus satisfying WP:Speedy keep. Subject will probably continue to make more international appearances in performing Outstanding activism and advocacy activities, and hence still satisfies the general notability requirements. Should not forget the Subject has already began a path that could end him up being a prominent world leader in days to come, how much coverage is needed before people keep wasting time trying to delete rather than improve this article of such prominent young Leaders? This article already has excellent referencing that shows that He is a notable activist in the civil rights movement of the United Nations, including books published by either his or other Organizations and online social presses. I encourage the nominator to withdraw this belittling remark. The subject appears to have made widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Stronbolt++ (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Stronbolt++ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep the subject is a notable enough topic WP:Speedy keep perwith dated banner asking for improved research. The subject has made a lot of contributions already to satisfy the general notability requirements, however, we are working to provide more links and references.Dr. Daniel Obuobi 06:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) — DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy Keep He appears notable to me, and just because the article isn't well written or well referenced, More improvement should be done on this Article rather than to be deleted.WIKILEAKbolt (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— WIKILEAKbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Keep I see merit in speedy Keep request. should not be deleted, the subject meets the general notability requirements.--cyberCHRoxE-- (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— --cyberCHRoxE-- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ More improvement are being done on this Article, to make it a notable one, and still continuing to link it up with reliable sources, I added some reliable ref tags - so at least you can see the source url's for easier evaluation of those refs. I strongly believe this Article should not be deleted since the subject has other reliable links that are yet to be sourced to make the article more notable for educational purposes Dr. Daniel Obuobi 08:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIEL OBUOBI (talk • contribs) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: Related UN Youth Ghana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UN Youth Ghana. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources – fails WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That Ghana News Agency reference is the press release which I referred to above as already being included as a source in the article. If anyone has additional sources to use for the article, they should go ahead and add them to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched and was unable to find significant coverage in independent sources to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as this is still questionable for the solid notability this article needs. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 20 April 2016 (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.