Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mo Fanning

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 as not being sufficiently notable and lacking any objective sources for the biography of a living person. Note that there is some evidence that this was an autobiography, which was created and edited in violation of said policy. Subject to re-creation at a later time, when an independent editor may find better sources, or the subject becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mo Fanning

Mo Fanning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• As the author in question, I feel this page satisfies your criteria. With my second novel due out at the start of next year, I'd imagine I could warrant an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by --Escol (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to know exactly why this is being deleted, if anyone could explain this to me, I'd be grateful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escol (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 March 2008

Esco, the primary arguments regarding the deletion of the article is that it does not pass the criteria set out on the pages these two links lead to: Wikipedia:Biographies, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may use links to multiple independent reliable sources to confirm the content of the article and its adhesion to our biography guidelines.

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Autobiography before you continue. While you are welcome to argue your case, it needs to be done in an objective fashion or others might consider you bias due to the fact that you are the author in question. While we do take into account the possibility of conflict of interest, we also take effort to consider any arguments presented. I hope that helps, I have delayed the closing of this debate until more discussion can happen. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _(1 == 2)^Until 17:48, 12 March 2008 (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.