Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ostrowski

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. No evidence of notability demonstrated. As noted in the discussion, what is needed to establish notability is not sources written by the subject, but sources not written by the subject. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ostrowski

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is blatant self-promotion, and appears to be a résumé written by the person it's referencing. Extensive editing could be done to fix it up, though the person isn't really notable in the first place. OnlyNano (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bibliographies. OnlyNano (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOT A SOCIAL NETWORK : Possible socking involved. Editor Sanctus7 and Andrew Ostrowski are possibly the same person. Sanctus7 supplied the images dated 2009, 2011, and 2012. Written like an in-depth press release for media outlets - more likely for a dating website - no doubt written by him ("I guess I'm an old fashioned ‘bump into somebody/love at first sight’ type of person as opposed to a wolf out for the hunt.”) Details on his likes and dislikes. An entire subsection on his "Spirituality", his various collections and personal life. "Ostrowski was in a relationship with the daughter of an executive..." — Maile (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now this is a real work of art in the personal self-promo genre, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an entry at this level. My instinct is that this will end up as a delete vote, but it’s not a speedy one, as there are in fact in-depth profiles here. The Staten Island advance is a real outlet. This coverage does not however appear to be independent of the subject however at first glance. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer level of effort this must've taken for someone to try to promote themself is sad at best. May it's deletion be swift. The13thTroll (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a really interesting article he's worked on here. Really caught my eye when I was copyediting it... OnlyNano 18:24, 22 January 2024 (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.