Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Nilsson (model)

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. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nilsson (model)

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

WP:BLP of non-notable model. Article has been flagged with COI issues and "sources" (before I moved them to External links) cannot be considered WP:RS. (Note: I messed up BLP PROD via Twinkle: hadn't noticed it had to be unsourced. I moved the "sources" to EL and uncited after PROD. My mistake.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added sources to the article in question. Rickard.Nosslin (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but see point #5 here: WP:SELFPUB. It states that we cannot base a biographical article primarily (or indeed entirely, as in this case) on self-published sources, though we can use them as sources of info on the subject as long as other sources are present. See also WP:BLPSPS and the paragraph following it. (Note: I was unaware of the policy when I removed the official site as a reference. I apologise for that.) We need more reliable sources. I have found one article on the Gay Wave website recently, actually, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Any thoughts? — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link to article here — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough coverage from WP:RELIABLE sources to support notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of sources that would allow for passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (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.