Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.A. Nik

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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Nik

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Has a little local interest puff but nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 06:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes no substantive claim of notability for anything that would actually pass any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules, and of the four sources being cited here only one is remotely substantive — but one quality source is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply see nothing better. Pinging taggers Zpeopleheart and Flixtey. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reliable source? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a blog, which hasn't been posted to since October 2014 and even its "contact us" link goes 404 instead of leading to any sort of masthead of their editorial team by which we could verify who wrote the content — so no. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as author, a his book is apparently self published and in only 2 worldcat libraries. From the article, not notable for anything else either. I'd normally consider this as an A7. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete-searches did not return enough to show they meet notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2015 (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.