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. ✗plicit 12:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

My reasons for wanting this page to be deleted is that it has several wrongful written statements and untrue information about me, my career and what I do. It is poorly researched and not up to date. I don't go under the name Milan anymore, it details work that I haven't done and this page describes the dancer I was 7 years ago whereas now I am only a choreographer. I am not a celebrity in any way, or famous. This wikipedia page is the first thing that comes up when clients are looking to book me for work and is looking for my actual website and it is misleading, untrue and harmful - I have no desire for it to exist. Please delete it, I would appreciate it a lot. Best, Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminjonsson (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note I created the AFD page for Benjaminjonsson as they were unsure of how to do it, and copied their AFD rationale from Special:Diff/1076882266. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing does not establish that the subject is sufficiently notable that we ought to have an article. Vexations (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search in the Swedish media archive doesn't establish much more than the fact that he exists. /Julle (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thin sourcing, coupled with subject request. There does not appear to be enough to support a standalone article. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks notability and independent sourcing. Timetraveller80 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (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.