Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosta Petrov

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kosta Petrov

Kosta Petrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

PR expert who is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. What references there are, are all trade papers. Writes about pr on Huff post. Still think it is a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable PR expert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – Per source searches, not finding multiple instances of independent, significant coverage about the subject; does not meet WP:BASIC. Also not finding significant coverage reviews of the author's books; does not meet WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• SNOW Delete as it's been CU-confirmed this was part of a mass-advertising and mass-account campaign and thus is not at all negotiable in our policies and there wouldn't be any notability since the sources are simply trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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.