Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Tana

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Tana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Obscenely promotional article of a non-notable person. Zero coverage in mainstream reliable sources. The only sources cited are minor offline industry publications whose own articles on the project ought to be considered for deletion. Indeed, you'll see that the reference to Inked (magazine) is dated 2006, a year in which its wikipedia article appears to concede the magazine was not published. Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Just because he has worked on famous or potentially famous people does not make him notable in itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
• Delete per above, fails nn...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks notability, by a long way. If notability was established this way then we'll see hairdressers, manicurists and gynaecologists to the famous appearing QU ^TalkQu 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPThe inked magazine spring of 2006 exist. Eddie is a heavy hitter in the tattoo game. Yeah I think maybe the page needs to be edited

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ETSJOE123 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

• Delete... I'm forced to agree, Mr. Tana doesn't appear to be notable himself, but for the work he has done for other (more famous) individuals. Now, Usual Caveats apply, of course, and we might revisit this if he becomes notable. But I can't see evidence of that, at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:20, 24 October 2011 (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.