Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Passantino

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Dom Passantino[edit]

Seemingly inconsequential journalist. Not sure about popularity or notability. Seems as though this article should be deleted WP:BIO Drak 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to get more discussion--Konstable 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passantino is a major figure in the online music criticism community, his move into mainstream print media is one of the most important developments in current British music journalism signalling a major shift in media dynamics. He is a very controversial figure and his, sometime brutal, criticisms are mentioned in a number of wiki articles such as the Tori Amos entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.205.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Passantino is hen fap. He lives in a world of virtual chat-rooms, discussing the merits of wrestling while picking his nose. He makes deliberately foul remarks in a bid to attract attention in a "look at me, I'm sooo outrageous" manner. It is impossible to think that anyone other than himself is responsible for this entry. Definitely suitable for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.152.48.43 (talk • contribs) (Originally a vandalization of the above vote)
  • Dom probably wrote this entry himself. Besides, he's a twat and Robin Carmody agrees. (PS: he is about as brutal as The Arctic Monkeys playing paintball war, ie: not in the fucking slightest.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.237.203 (talk • contribs)
  • lol esteban— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.58.152 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep (strong keep below) - seems notable to me. He's written for some heavyweight publications, even if he'll probably never win a Pullitzer Prize. --Dweller 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This AFD has been repeatedly vandalized by anons. I've tried to restore and tag comments as written, though multiple IP's edited different entries. Fan-1967 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disclaimer- new user I don't know how much weight is given to the expandability of the article. However I don't think this article can really be expanded beyond it's current form, which I think makes a very weak article. Ratherhaveaheart 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to be contentious, but I wasn't aware that those are valid reasons for a delete vote. I thought the issue was notability. --Dweller 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You are right expandability is not an official reason for a delete vote, but I guess I was going with the "no rules" policy in thinking that given the above stated situation it doesn't seem like a worthy article and deleting the article would improve WP. Furthermore I think the lack of information-expandability- does indicate a lack of notability, since the subject is not notable enough to have very much information about him available for people to research beyond his editing positions on two magazines. If the article was expanded to include more substance I would be easily persuaded to Keep
  • Keep As stated above, the very existence of this man is a seismic paradigm shift in the media stratus. Journalis 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless I'm missing something here there is no assertion of notability in the article . I cannot find a biography on him, news article with him as the subject or any information that he's made a lasting contribution to the field of music journalism. The stylus magazine website lists him as a senior writer which shows that he is just another journo of no significant consequence. Peripitus (Talk) 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unimportant. Made a small wave with the Tori Amos review, more out of a plan to become infamous than out of any interest in journalism. It has died down, and he is where he belongs: obscurity. Amber388 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- You seem to argue that he was once notable, but no longer. That is an argument to keep, not delete. --Dweller 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I can't understand the desire to delete this. I spent 30 seconds googling and came up with this ([1]) article by Passantino, published in the Guardian this month. As a writer for a national newspaper, he is notable. --Dweller 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Very stubby article -- I'd sure like to see some more content. But (barely) notable. NawlinWiki 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as above, it needs some content, but there are several thousand stubs without AfD's so it's not a natural criterion for deletion. Budgiekiller 17:56, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dom_Passantino&oldid=1079909154"