Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Stricker

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. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stricker[edit]

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

I don't think this person is sufficiently notable for inclusion. The article a copy of his website (apparently OTRS permission has been sent so G12 does not apply) but there is nothing to demonstrate notabiliity. A search for signigficant independent coverage in reliable sources turned up nothing. SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question is the problem, because I created this Biography and placed a copy on our website and on Wikipedia? Because I can easily rewrite either. Or is the problem you find Kim Stricker as not being notable enough? Why can his pears Babe Winkelman, Al Lindner, Skeet Reese to name a few have wikipedia pages but Kim Stricker can't? Kim Stricker is 27-year veteran of all major bass fishing tours, he has had his TV show on cable networks for over seven years, Kim has created multiple bass fishing DVDs productions that sell all across the world. You may have just seen a copy of a biography of Kim Stricker on his website, but the wikipedia page is just a beginning. There are so much more notable stuff that can be added and will be added, but I first need the approval of a "notable person - Kim Stricker" known throughout the world as the Bass Fishing Underwater Videography Specialist.

Google Search - Kim Stricker Kim Stricker DVDs Reviewed - By Outdoor Writer Brad Wiegmann Kim Stricker DVD Productions on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbman (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion and I will continue to add credible references to the Kim Stricker Biography. Please keep this living person biography going. There will be many other article to come off and link to Kim Stricker. Would you prefer me to recreate my biography on our website so it is not a direct copy? I can site references to many of the facts in the biography and I will continue to do so.

This was my first wikipedia article and i now realize the time and effort it takes to make a good article with notable references.

Thank you, Danny Stricker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbman (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * Again I apologize for not siting my references properly on this biography of Kim Stricker. I have since updated many parts of the article to contain proper references from all over the web. I will continue to update Kim Stricker and make sure that there are notable facts with references. Thank you for your consideration to keep. Wkbman (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIARY. Firstly, the author is too closely related to the subject. Because of that, the article is entirely too long and filled with information that no one not affiliated with the subject, or fishing for that matter, cares about. Secondly, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia articles need to be encyclopedic, concise as much as possible. The subject is not that much of a public figure to have what is listed about him. Finally, notability. Most of the subject's references are from his website or the little-known TV show (which also does not have an article). Sources need to be independent and from notable news organizations. If all that was fixed, I would still stand by my vote. — Wylie pedia 15:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this individual, the sources in the article are mostly from those affiliated to the subject. Valenciano (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (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.