Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel M. Shirley

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 all of them. --- Deville (Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Shirley, The BSDS Production Company and Roanoke: The Lost Colony[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A walled garden of vanity articles about a film maker, his company and his current production. Edited out of the latter is the fact that the movie is not due out until 2007. Vanity, not (yet) notable, crystal ballery. -- RHaworth 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per reasons given by nom. Came across this when reviewing the article on Bertie Stephens, which I have already nominated for deletion. Agent 86 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. They are a credible source, and considering this is an 'encyclopedia', what harm is there in allowing articles that have truth and substance. Why do people search an encyclopedia? to find information about something. What do these articles provide...truthful information. Ive seen more crap in more 'notable' articles.
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[1]

Keep All as per reasons above. yesselman 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[2]

Keep All RHaworth noted the fact the movie's not yet released, however future movie releases are allowed and i believe a stub has been added now Oliver Pereira 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[3] [4]

Keep All Feel its unfair to say its a walled garden, when it's linked from and to 'roanoke' based articles Bullard21 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All ghits seem credible linked to film which external links seem credible

Keep All The Wikipedia guidelines state Vanity articles are "empty of any interest to anyone".I find it hard to believe that a movie on an extremely famous subject can be "empty of any interest to anyone".

Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 (talk • contribs) .

Guidelines also state. "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous". So exactly how can articles be deleted based on one individuals 'mini' research on the subject claiming 'no notability'82.43.72.117 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin may wish to review the edit history for this discussion. It appears most of the preceeding entries were not made by their purported author but by User:82.43.72.117. Agent 86 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 (talk • contribs) .
- note - struck out as duplicate of vote above (like many here). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three per nom's reasons. Vanity and POV, crystal ballery, no non-primary sources.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete all as per nom. It's vanity, and fails verification. -- Whpq 13:47, 6 September 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.