Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristopher Dukes

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. Bratsche^talk 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kristopher Dukes

• Delete: Non-notable vanity autobiography article. This has already been removed once (maybe this is a speedy then?). Author's history also includes flooding the article Initium with some kind of writing (which was soon reverted). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• She's cute. But this is certainly vanity. Delete. -- Krash (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Krash Ruby 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Krash. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 15:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Terence Ong 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Howabout1 16:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'll bite. Annoying as Kristopher may be, the article asserts, with apparently verifiable sources, that she writes regularly "in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." And writing regularly for the WWD group is a pretty clear signal of notability. So what's the case for deletion, since vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion. Monicasdude 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. It would, of course, be malicious and inappropriate, not to mention being an object lesson, to make one's decision based on the expectation that, since Kristopher is required to release her copyright on her publicity photo under GFDL, it would soon enough appear in phone sex advertising all over metro LA . . .

• • Comment: Maybe I'm too stupid to find it but I can't find any examples of her supposed writing. All I've found is blog entries on her www.shopetc.com link. Her topbutton.com link has a search - when I search on her name, I get nothing. Her http://www.stylekristopherdukes.com/ external link is broken. Her personal web site appears to have no links to the outside world and is slathered with ads (which I'm sure are getting her plenty of $ during this Afd). I'm having trouble proving that this isn't a total hoax. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Use the "CLIPS" link at the top of her website. You get article texts plus embedded scans of the print articles, including at least two recent clips from Women's Wear Daily (WWD) group magazines. And WWD is serious business, trivial as its subjects often are. Monicasdude 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And not a total hoax [1], but a writer who will likely be menacing the English language for years to come . . . Monicasdude 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WWD is serious business, but writing two articles for "WWD Los Angeles" is not. If that were the threshhold for Wikipedia inclusion, we'd be flooded with non-notable freelancers...like Kristopher Dukes. Steve Casburn 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per monicasdude Jcuk 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: BTW, I'll bet the standard vanity criteria will be met, i.e. you'll never see another edit from her outside of her own article (and this Afd if she ever comes back). I know --- WP:VAIN --- but still... It's amazing - and a little sickening - how often this happens. "How can I make Wikipedia work for me me me me?" You could spend all day watching new articles come in and delete them 3 or 4 at a time. She's gotten a few poorly-written articles into magazines - I got a poem into a short-story magazine once as a kid. Do I get an article? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, per nom

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.