Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bourrie (2nd 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 was El Speedy Keepo Gigante - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

According to the wikipedia policy regarding notable living persons, I do not believe the individual in question comes close to passing the fairly rigid standards imposed by the policy. For additional information please see Notability People. In particular, he does seem to meet this criteria: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Link to Archived discussion of Speedy Delete nomination in July 2006 WasWasWu Sept 26, 2006 9:30 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per first nomination. This is Nom's first edit, which also leads me to beleive sockpuppetry may be involved here. Stubbleboy 03:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as above. -- Beardo 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the subject is no less notable than last time. --Michael Johnson 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that WP:ArbCom just accepted a case on a very closely related topic. Not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out that the timing is interesting. (Note: Am a bit new, so, if this comment is inappropriate, leave a note on my Talk page and I'll fix it.) --JaimeLesMaths 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Curcumstances haven't changes since last nomination, which was a clear keep, this subject is as notable as ever. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Where are the "Multiple Independent Reviews" that would justify keeping this article?
  • "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Are we going to follow the Wikipedia policy or not?User:WasWasWu 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If we are going to keep Wikipedia from spiralling out to nothing more than a database of every two-bit author & part time journalist in the world, then these two Alternative tests seem applicable and perhaps need to be more widely employed when assessing Notability:
  • "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
  • 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?User:WasWasWu 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment don't state delete twice... it is bad wiki-etiquette.--Isotope23 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, nomination of article that surivived an AfD on a keep consensus by a single use account. No credible reason given for deletion.--Isotope23 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I strongly suspect this speedy delete request is just another moment in a very long edit war without end. I'd probably vote for deletion if the motives weren't so suspect. --Nik 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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.