Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Oberheiden

: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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

=[[Nick Oberheiden]]=

:{{la|Nick Oberheiden}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Oberheiden Stats])

:({{Find sources|Nick Oberheiden}})

WP:NOTABILITY. Claims that he made headlines don't match with the lack of gnews hits (one hit, listing him on a list of speakers). That he interviewed notable people does not make him notable. Student awards and recognition within his own law firm would not seem to rise to levels suggested by WP:GNG. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete Sources show trivial coverage at best. Also plenty of heresay statements such as: "Several publications have made Oberheiden one of the most demanded experts on Brazilian law." Judicatus | Talk 20:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. BLP article using peacock phrases to state ... there is someone who has a Dr.. Fails WP:GNG.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would have tagged this for speedy deletion as irredeemably promotional, but now we're here we might as well have a full discussion. I've removed some of the most nauseating promotional language but we're still left with something that doesn't resemble a neutral encyclopedia article in the least, and I can see nothing in the article or elsewhere that gives the slightest hint of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

: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.