Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rukis Croax

: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. Seems like the current notability criteria aren't met, changing them would require a separate discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

=[[Rukis Croax]]=

:{{la|Rukis Croax}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rukis_Croax Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Rukis Croax}})

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. All sources are self-published. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep, because this type of content does not typically inspire cognoscente, I think we as an encyclopedia should lower the criteria for inclusion slightly. Pwolit iets (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete Could be notable in the field, but this supplies no evidence even of that. (I'm willing to be convinced ...) Also, it's a WP:BLP with zero WP:RSes, and we're not actually allowed to do that - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Added WP:RS to the page, removed self-published source. Kawayama (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You added what appears to be another self-published source - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete - I don't even see one good reliable source providing significant coverage (in the article or via searching), nevermind enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete I see no evidence of critical analysis of Croax's work anywhere. Mduvekot (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Just another BLP without independent reliable sourcing. While the article has 16 references, two are to a self-published book, two are to a self-posted (non-notable) award announcement, eleven to pages offering the subject's work for sale, and one to a fundraising page supporting the subject. This is an abject sourcing failure, especially for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2016 (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.