Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale M. Houstman

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. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dale_M._Houstman

• Delete, Non-notable, vanity, and promotion.

Dale Michael Houstman is non-notable and unknown to be accepted for an article on Wikipedia. Anyone can get their creative work, poems, writings, etc, published for a fee and placed online. Upon reading the article, this Dale Michael Houstman has posted to Usenet newsgroups, does not make him a credible topic for inclusion on Wikipedia either. The article subject, Dale Michael Houstman is so unknown, I cannot find any legitimate reference sources to validate this person or their work. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion, nor is it to be used as a shortcut to being considered as noteworthy. Classicjupiter2 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator --Strothra 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The books he claims to have written are not listed on Amazon.com. Seano1 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is a rather clear case of vanity. Danny Lilithborne 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but drastically rework. Article is too subjective. Nomination is incoherent and self-contradicting in a number of ways. Statement "[a]nyone can get their [sic] creative work... published for a fee and placed online" doesn't make sense because implication seems to be that publication of creative work is in print form (particularly where this involves fee), so what is the connexion to placing it online? Furthermore, summary dismissal of self-published items (this is begging a question that I think might not be correct in this case) doesn't acknowledge that many prominent works of the past were initially self-published -- this claim (if indeed it is intended to be applied to Houstman, which I'm assuming) needs both source citation and a more rigourous analysis. That Houstman has "posted to Usenet newsgroups" is completely irrelevant to this article, or at least I'm missing the connexion. Also note that Classicjupiter2 has never seen fit to explain what he means by "legitimate reference sources" (he really just uses this as a shorthand for reference sources he likes). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 12 April 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.