Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telsa Gwynne
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Telsa 23:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (yes, that one)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am the subject of this article and this AfD is neither false modesty nor a fit of pique. I just think any internet notability I had is long-gone except for the accident that I have a very unusual name and have been on the internet for long enough for that name to end up all over Google.
Going down the factoids in the article: marriage to another person with a Wiki article? Should every spouse of everyone with an article have their own article? I don't think so. "More accurate diary" (not "most")? I have been waiting for six months for someone to notice it has not been updated. Heavily involved with Gnome? Not right now, but in the past, yes -- but as part of a cast of hundreds. Perhaps, by now, thousands. Translations? I largely put other people's work in CVS, not mine. "Is often said".. well, yes, I complain about this, but again, encyclopedic value..? No single item in this list is remotely notable on its own. I'm really not convinced that the combination is either. And WP:BIO (which I found as I wrote this) confirms me in that view.
Telsa 00:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well-argued nomination. FCYTravis 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that these types of arguements seem to have little to no bearing in many other articles which are still floating around but don't have the article's focus arguing for deletion. Oh, and Delete, of course. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What a well-reasoned, modest nomination. It's nice to see someone who's not interested in using WP for vanity. It's enough to make me vote keep. :) Delete. °°°rodii 01:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nomination is spot-on. ×Meegs 07:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and give her a cookie. Stifle 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Telsa. We should have a list of Wikipedian's who have successfully argued for deletion of their biography! Thryduulf 15:18, 20 January 2006 (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.