Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fleming

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 No consensus. HappyCamper 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming[edit]

Previously marked for speedy but that was rejected. Subject, and likely author, wants it deleted. Delete AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Please note that about half of the pages that link to this article are referring to other people called John Fleming. AlistairMcMillan 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Another reason for this page to be deleted would be WP:VAIN. AlistairMcMillan 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question what are the grounds for deletion? It doesn't seem to constitute an attack, and, per the umpteen debates on Daniel Brandt, subject's wishes are not grounds for deletion. Author's wishes only apply when there has been primarily only one author, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Fan1967 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:John Fleming. Aside from minor style edits John would appear to be the only editor. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it seems it would meet the criteria for speedy, but not regular AfD. WP:VAIN might apply, but it seems he has done a decent job of establishing minor notability, which can be used as an argument to override vanity. OK, I'm lost. No idea what rules apply here. Fan1967 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. Fagstein 07:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bona-fide published writer. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Like Fan1967 I'm conflicted. He's a writer and has sold. I'm not sure that makes notability. (guess I'm going to have to go memorize relevant guidelines) Then there is the confusion about whether the author wants the article deleted. It looked to me like that become true only when the article's notability was questioned. I guess I can understand how distressing those notice boxes are. I don't think the article is notable enough. I don't think an article is defensible if the author won't defend it. Shenme 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm flip-flopping on this. After exposure to too many other recent vanity and near-vanity pages I have to say this article looks much much much better. This person actually did things (as opposed to, say, someone whose notability is nearly solely over having laid a suit over the route of a road). Shenme 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm the John Fleming in the article. It's not really for me to say if I'm notable or if it should be deleted but I would rather have it deleted than have a whacking great box sitting above it in cyberspace for all eternity suggesting people supply "verifiable" information. I don't know how anyone can verify anything very much beyond birth certificate, contracts anyway - or you could go out and buy the books, three of which sold more than 5,000 copes and one of which goes into paperback in August. I tried to remove the last three paragraphs as they probably are just puff, but I was not allowed to: they were re-instated. I think the box was sitting there for about a month, I sent three e-mails and it looked like nothing was ever going to be done about removing it or to decide whether to delete the entry or not. Incidentally, I have no idea what UTC means beyond a good comedy club in South-East London.

UTC is Coordinated Universal Time, which most of us know as GMT. Fan1967 00:44, 26 April 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.