Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Taylor (celebrity blogger)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Taylor (celebrity blogger)

Apparent autobiography of an apparently non-notable blogger and staffer for Hot or Not. While it does indeed have references, one is a tangential mention of him in the context of his website; one is a now-deleted post on www.365gay.com; one is a reference to an uncited claim on another Wikipedia page which was itself inserted by the creator of this article, and one makes no mention of the point it's supposed to be referencing – 'He is now the third ranked celebrity blogger in the world, and nicknamed "The Canadian Perez Hilton"' – the actual quote is 'In the short time since IsThisHappening’s late-summer debut, it has established an audience of 200,000 unique visitors per month, most with Canadian IP addresses'. – iride scent 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiographical spam is pretty damning in my book. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is actually a CBC article which focuses on this blogger here. This does confer some notability on him. The CBC, like the BBC, a WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I agree with Quartermaster, it seems like spam. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Artene50 - DigitalC (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can understand why this self-promotional material was listed, and I dislike the idea that this equates with notability, but (heaven help me) I've actually heard this person interviewed on CBC radio and treated as an expert on both celebrity news and high-profile blogging, oxymoronic though those concepts may seem. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. I think "autobiographical vanity spam" is a fair assessment, also. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (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.