Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Kado

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Kado[edit]

Apparently non-notable blogger with a couple of self-published books: upgraded contested speedy delete Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The {{COI}} tag appears well-deserved (See a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Clear COI). There is a distinct lack of reliable sources to show importance. An editor named Bkado created this article. The subject's removal of the WP:PROD tag is allowed by policy, but doesn't suggest a collaborative spirit. PROD removal would be more acceptable if it was followed by an improvement of the article to meet our standards. There is a possibility that the subject has also edited the article as 67.36.189.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He should avoid the use of multiple identities on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I seconded the PROD, which was also removed. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable is plenty of reason. Editor seems to a absolute love for the subject matter, including intimate knowlege of his life. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops I forgot to add crystalballing about the movie that is scheduled to be released in the fall fo 2008. Oh wait, maybe that's the reason for the article. Never got to use so many policies in one AFD before. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanispamcruftisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the one blog link being ok, but he was using it to prove he won an award, which isn't ok. Where you put it is fine. I should have checked that it was his and just moved it so it was basically an EL instead of a cite. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be active on a local scene but there is not really supporting citations to show they are representative of said local scene. The blogging part has already been addressed and I agree. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Alexnia (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2008 (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.