Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Lodge

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 Speedy keep.; AFD created by a single-purpose account, with the intent to delete articles created by WietsE. User has been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lodge[edit]

Not notable Carl Timothy Jones 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of at least 2 independent media articles listed in the page; passes WP:BIO. Akihabara 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not pass WP:BIO on that evidence. The only article from a well known source seems to be the Observer article and that is an eyewitness account from the subject, not an article about the subject themself. The other main article seems to be the Freelance one. Hardly a major media source. Even if they were both independant articles from major media sources, it would be a is very flimsy application of WP:BIO - but they are not even that. None of the other WP:BIO criteria seem even remotely relevant. Carl Timothy Jones 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have contributed to the article in the past and it seems someone has registered a few days ago and the only contributions so far seems to have been nominations for articles I have worked on. Have a look: Special:Contributions/Carl_Timothy_Jones - WietsE 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does that have to do with whether the article should be kept or not? Familiarise yourself with the process to be followed here, and what constitutes a relevant debate. If you must know, I have previously edited anonymously and I came across the Sumac Centre articles via Random article, I then checked out your user page and this took me to your other contributions. The majority seem to be of a highly questionable level of notability and I wouldn't be surprised if you are trying to publicise groups that you belong to (I note that some other articles of yours, with a similar theme, have already been deleted). Regardless, try to stick to the criteria here, I have questioned the notability of the group, so if you want to argue, argue that. Carl Timothy Jones 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems that I am far from the first to suggest that the subject of this article is non-notable [1] Carl Timothy Jones 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see by this edit summary that your are, in fact, closely related to these groups, as I suspected. Almost all of your edits are to articles on these groups. Carl Timothy Jones 22:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not sure if you're a troll or not. All your contributions so far have been to propose deletion of articles made by User:WietsE. This could be a coincidence of course, but we can short-circuit the guidelines if we find out you're misbehaving. Kim Bruning 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what to say here, except to ask you to look at the articles that I have nominated and decide whether I have done anything wrong, or whether it is just that this user has created a number of articles that justify at least a deletion discussion and has advertised their existence on his user page. When you do this, please also look at the fact that other articles I have flagged have already been deleted, and that this article has previously been tagged for a speedy deleted more than once. Carl Timothy Jones 23:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, if the winston award is in fact notable Kim Bruning 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but shouldn't you find out whether the award is notable before voting Keep? Isn't this only one step away from saying "Keep if this person is in fact notable"? I can't personally find anything to show that it is notable. Carl Timothy Jones 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, so that's irrelevant. :-) My opinion is conditional on the notability of the winston award. (ie. if my opinion becomes a key point in the discussion, this fact will need to be checked somehow, either by myself or someone else. It doesn't need to be checked right away). Kim Bruning 01:20, 11 December 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.