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. RL0919 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Maniatis[edit]

[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)

There is a lack of in depth references allowing the subject to pass WP:N. Sikonmina (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When a Google search for the label turns up the usual suspects: the Soundcloud site, the Discogs site, the Rateyourmusic site, YouTube, etc., you expect what you get from a search of Maniatis: this article as the top hit, his Linkedin page, his Instagram page, his Facebook page, his Twitter feed -- all the hallmarks of NN. Only coverage is fleeting namedrops in strictly local sources. Utterly fails the GNG, as well as WP:CREATIVE, and obvious WP:COI/vanity issues with article creator User:Alexmaniatis, an SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this article was. The deprodder deserves a trout slap for this mindbending deprod. Ravenswing 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are boomerang-shaped trouts available? In defence of Curbon7, the deprod was because the rationale ("article relies on a single reference") implied deletion based on current sourcing, not on available sources, which should have been checked. But having said that, Maniatis seems to have about as much source as an unsauced trout, so delete is a reasonable outcome. Elemimele (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said, it was a technical de-PROD bc of a flawed rationale. That doesn't mean I disagree with the PROD, to the point that I will say delete, as there is an exceptional lack of sources available on the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodding for the sake of deprodding is a waste of everyone's time, especially since with thirty seconds' worth of examination, one can readily see that this is the sort of uncontroversial deletion that's the very point of having the PROD process in the first place. Ravenswing 23:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ravensing here. My rationale was inadequate, but that does not mean that I didn't check if there were sources to support notability. I did do a search and as Ravenswing noted, the usual primary sources appeared. Sikonmina (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, the best thing to do when encountering a ((PROD)) on an article that should be deleted uncontroversially but the reason is inadequately explained is to use a ((PROD2)) template. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per accurate reasoning by Ravenswing. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and the above delete voter, there is not any notable point in article! Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (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.