Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Tomanek

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tomanek

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

This page seems to be a self made page for a complete unknown person currently underserving of an encyclopaedic entry. There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep the page active upon evaluating the sources; one is the Daily Mail, a wholly unreliable source; the Cambridge Post article does not seem to exist any longer; one source is from the NSO which has no record of reliability and again could have been written by the subject of the article themselves; and finally, being featured in the prospectus of a secondary school does not constitute anything besides proof of being a student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T1grr (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more reliable sources on him: ITV News, Daily Mirror, Haber Turk. Whether that's enough is another question... Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a self-made page, note that the subject appears to have previously requested deletion here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete Marginal case and individual himself has previously requested deletion. In those cases, we should delete. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not even marginal. Clearly does not meet the guidelines for musicians. Limited evidence of performances, no recordings. I consider child prodigies to be notable only if they are also notable in their profession. Otherwise it's just the sort of "human interest" non-encyclopedic coverage that violates NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 25 June 2017 (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.