Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Prosalendis

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Prosalendis

[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)

Blatant NPOV violation, article is written like advertisement. Most sources are primary and/or unreliable. I count three sources affiliated with the subject and four social media links as references. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second, fifth, ninth, twentieth, and twenty-third sources are YouTube videos. The fifteenth, sixteenth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eight are primary sources, directly affiliated with the subject. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 18:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article meets the notability and verification criteria. I put those social media links because they were accurate references to the topic. However, if those links make the article seem like an advertisement, I could replace them with other references.

In addition to that, the sources are not unreliable since most of them are verified websites that exist for years, such us the interview websites. Some of them are primary, but the information of the references exists in almost all of them. HustlerLFG (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use interviews as sourcing, and youtube isn't a reliable source either. What you're left with after removing these isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, United Arab Emirates, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or NPOV Nswix (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single source that isn't youtube or other random social media posts was SEO junk - several were actual fake PR/blogs used for blackhat promotional nonsense. The creator even used blacklisted PR sources by using fake URLs. I've trimmed all of the garbage PR sources out - not much really usable left. Searches return just the usual promotional SEO stuff - nothing really notable or usable. I would have absolutely G11ed this if you had tagged it as such - I suppose we can let the process run. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. red flag #1 "entrepreneur", red flag #2 "crypto". What's left? A Greek person that is online? Zero sources that are RS, rest is fluffy spam stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2023 (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.