Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Ligon

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. --Core desat 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Ligon

Probably an WP:AUTOBIO. This is a well-crafted article, but I do not beleive mention in a few news sources meets WP:BIO in this case. Reads like a resume. Danski14^(talk) 05:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It is well sourced with many different sources. The references are not just from a non-notable "local newspaper" but papers like the Los Angeles Times. I think it should be kept but only after someone rewrites the entire article so it isn't like a resume. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 06:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, sorry to say I did not notice that. However, unfortunately I can not find his name in what I can read of the article to make any judgment. But assuming it is correct, is mention in the LA times and a few smaller papers enough? I am not sure. I would like to hear what other editors think. If they think the subject is notable and that the article can be fixed up somehow, I will retract this AfD. Danski14^(talk) 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, many sources are used. I have seen this young man on TV several times, on the City Channel. Although I'm not one for Public Access, I believe the man is legitimate in having an article. However, the neutrality could be disputed. In my opinion it is enough to be kept alive. Lady luck knows all 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above comment was left by a sockpuppet account just created by Hunter.ligon (talk · contribs). Danski14^(talk) 07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Despite the sock-puppeting --- this article seems sourced and while I don't know of him --- there seems to be enough information available on him from various sources so that someone ELSE could redo his article and make it read less like a resumé. That to me seems like enough to keep the article. A quick glance around the internet and his named popped up a few times in major media outlets, and many times in his local outlets. It's a rather weak keep, but if we delete it now --- I'm sure it'll be back later (and rightfully so.) --NeptuneMan 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come on now guys. The cites from actual sources don't discuss him, they're peripheral and do not support a biography. From WP:BIO: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The others that mention him only do so in passing or are not reliable sources. Ligon was pretty creative in trying to game the system but it doesn't change the fact that this article dosn't meet the bio criteria for notability. It is also a clear conflict of interest and vanity. After all that the sockpuppets just illustrate that this is a dishonest effort to game. NeoFreak 16:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - self written bio, need I say more? Also, sources are poor and resultantly fails WP:BIO. Rgds, - Trident13 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Very weak keep the sources are real, and support the article in spite of the obvious COI. Like anyone who see New Articles, I have a certain amount of prejudice against articles about high school students, but I think this one counts as N and V. The list of miscellaneous accomplishments is however unsourced, and has just been removed.DGG 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After actually removing all of them, and looking at the sources, which either do not support his involvement or are incidental mentions, it turns out there is not much else left. There does seem to be a real core. DGG 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:NeoFreak Baristarim 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. If the subject is genuinely notable someone other than him will be along with an indepednently written article soon enough. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete conflict of interest, fails to even assert notability. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, autobigraphical, and fails to assert notability--Ng.j 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiographical, and though he's apparently on the path to notability, he's not there yet. Realkyhick 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. The article is autobiographical, and I don't think he's quite reached the point of notability yet. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:N. Need third-party commentary to justify keeping it. EdJohnston 22:28, 3 April 2007 (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.