Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Dein

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 keep. So Why 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dein

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

The following copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Julius Dein. Eagleash (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think this article should be keep bcoz nowadays there is a lot of people who became famous on Facebook, 6 million followers is not a big amount, there is too many people who have more than 10 million/15 million followers and its possible to get paid followers/fake followers. If this article is able to be keep so all of other facebook star should add on the encyclopedia, Pls make an case about Julius Dein" This comment added by nominator 119.30.35.180.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. GNG very clearly met by this person. Obviously no evidence of WP:BEFORE, this nomination has absolutely no chance of success. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of those references are the Daily Mail! (talk)Quetzal1964 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the coverage is from short tabloid news stories but there are more detailed analytical pieces.[1][2][3] Meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't necessarily believe what you read in the Daily Mail is true, but I do believe it talks about this man on a regular basis. Er, actually, no. I believe their website talks about this man on a regular basis. I'm not sure if the print edition does. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as not all of the sources are from the Daily Mail, it's not much of a concern. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 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.