Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Schilling (1st nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Schilling[edit]

Vanity, unencyclopedic. Delete Ardenn 05:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are a patent application and a soundbite enough to claim notable status? I don't think so but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. (aeropagitica) 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mentioned in in Business 2.0 (Dec. 2005). They say he's notable for redirecting his site (Factcheck.com) to GeorgeSoros.com during the Cheney/Edwards debate when Cheney said "Factcheck.com" when he meant to say "Factcheck.org." Crypticfirefly 07:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Crypticfirefly. I remember that event; ephemeral notability is still notability in this case. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That event wouldn't be worth its own article, maybe a mention on an article about the debate. There have been millions of patent applications; even having an issued patent isn't necessarily enough to be worth an encyclopedia article. It would depend on the patent. Peyna 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be a Merge, but I'm not really sure where it should go. Sorry; suggestions are welcome. -Colin Kimbrell 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crypticfirefly. Monicasdude 18:08, 3 February 2006 (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.