Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Cohan

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 speedy keep. Ifnord 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Cohan

• This is a vanity page. Person is not someone of note, inappropriate for Wikipedia. As evidence, Technorati lists only 2 blogs as linking to author's blog. Babson 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: User:Babson's three edits are all related to this AfD. Unusually zippy discovery of AfD for a new user.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears that the page was created, essentialy whole, by an IP address that's never edited any other entries. That IP resolves to a cable modem in Mass., consistent with the subject's location. Looks to be a vanity page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.7.202 (talk • contribs) .
• Who is this guy? Appearing in a few magazines and on TV once or twice doesn't make you all that noteworthy. I'd say delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.219.46 (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy keep, author of 7 books, amazon.com gives 23 results for Peter S. Cohan, first page of google results for the name gives an article in Washington Times written about him, 5 hits on google news. Also, nominator's first edit and seemingly a bad-faith nomination, since the whole article doesn't even mention the person having a blog. - Bobet 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that vast majority of 23 Amazon results are not actually related to Peter S. Cohan. This guy has writen a few books, but this is clearly a vanity page.--24.34.78.114 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no other votes to delete and (the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive, or the nomination was in violation of WP:POINT). Please choose another vote. Stifle 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Please re-read my comment, I said I believe the nomination to be in bad faith, since the only evidence given to support deletion by the original nominator is the ranking of a blog, that the article doesn't even mention. - Bobet 16:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, and I suspect the nomination was in bad faith myself. However, the policy also requires that there have been no votes to delete other than the nominator. Stifle 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Anons can't vote, therefore there are no votes to delete. - Bobet 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is a vanity page, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.118.63 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy keep and expand per Bobet. Fetofs 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no other votes to delete and (the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive, or the nomination was in violation of WP:POINT). Please choose another vote. Stifle 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Get rid of this article please, clearly a vanity page.
• Keep, suspicious nom, given my note above and the multiple IP users encouraging deletion. Would be speedy keep, but this might, somehow, be a good-faith nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep, original AfD tag was placed[1] from an IP address[2] at the college listed as Cohan's place of employment. Almost certainly pov nom. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:30, 1 February 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.