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. Tone 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I struggle to see the value in this article to Wikipedia:
It is unsourced
Contains apparent nonsesnse
Links to articles which were previously deleted for similar reasons
May violate WP:BLP
Written like an essay
Written like an autobiography
Poorly written
Would require a total re-write to meet standards or be valuable to Wikipedia
Other issues that should be apparent to most editors
bsmithme 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, mostly.
Drmies (
talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is not unsourced, and this was pointed out in the previous AFD - which, btw, was a keep. If it contains apparent nonsense, you
clean it up. If it's got bleeding links, you delink.
WP:BLP may be in violation, but I don't think so here. This is an article that can be fixed up, but there's no need to nuke it. --
Dennis The Tiger (
Rawr and
stuff) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The entire premise for deletion is that the average reader (such as myself) is not able to discern the meaning or context of the article. Thus I think it is imprudent to befall us with the responsibility of cleaning it up. If you look at the history of the article it has been problematic from the beginning and nobody with an apparent understanding of the meaning of the article has ever bothered to clean it up after its first nomination. This in my opinion warrants it for nomination even if it's a second time. --
bsmithme 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - trivial coverage. Can this be merged into another article?
PhilKnight (
talk) 09:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
DeleteThe fact that the disambiguation speaks
LOL should indicate this is more likely a jokeWP:NN as a standalone topic. --
RUL3R*
flaming | *
vandalism 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: Alright, this is a fluff piece that really needs work, and I strongly disagree that this is a notable subject. However ... the main source I read isn't a couple of fluff promotional paragraphs; it's a lengthy, indepth article put out by the Los Angeles Times. It's tough to argue that this doesn't pass
WP:GNG, more's the pity.
Ravenswing 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |
Talk 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, fails
WP:BIORadioFan (
talk) 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Even if I assume that the LA Times blog is RS (which I don't, necessarily) it's a good example of why the policies for notability demand multiple references. A single swallow does not make a summer. Not notable = delete. --
Dweller (
talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (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.