Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian L. Rochester

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. --Angelo (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Rochester[edit]

Note: This article was originally tagged for AfD by User:GeorgeLouis, but did not appear to be followed through. I am doing so partly as a procedural nomination, but also as an actual nomination.

Delete. Subject does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. There are 6 results for a Google search of "Brian L Rochester" and 72 "unique" results for Rochester "Joey Jenkins". Subject has been noted in publications, however, they are of mostly local interest. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Creation and single editing interest of user "Blrochester" - WP:COI issues? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no notability established and research does not support notability. (WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, btw.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that wikipedia limited articles to national vs. regional or local interest items. Definitely censureship and highly unpatriotic. Request entry of this article due to the local publicity referenced in the article.--Blrochester (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Censureship"? Do you mean "censorship"? What on earth does writing an encyclopedia and determining notability have to do with either censorship or patriotism? At any rate, thank you for pointing out the local sources. I'd like to point out WP:BIO which elaborates on notability criteria for individual people. In particular, see the "Creative professionals" section. Nothing in the current article suggests that Brian L. Rochester is (a) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; (b) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; (c) created ... a significant or well-known work ... (d) the person's work has won significant critical attention (emphasis mine). Can you, "Blrochester", fairly and in good faith claim that the article meets or is likely to meet those criteria? --Lquilter (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And quickly. It's not even an article at this point, it reads like a resume. No notability established, no resources. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (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.