Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sheen

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. I'm satisfied both about the lack of notability and the BLP considerations. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sheen[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BLP1E. He's basically known for getting in trouble with the law society, something covered in all of one source. In addition, privacy is a concern; we've received an OTRS request for removal (ticket 2010053110001242) Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, upon looking closely at this one, I concur with the nominator. The sole significant coverage about Sheen seems to be an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. While this material would certainly have a place in the article if Sheen were a more notable individual, I can't really find anything else much on him. The other sources provided in the article do not address Sheen in depth. For this reason, I feel he does not meet the WP:BIO criteria at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:58, 12 June 2010 (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.