Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shan wells

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 keep. Glen 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shan wells[edit]

Vanity article, creator and sole editor is its subject. Subject is not notable, and the user's mainspace contribs are only to articles about or related to himself. A move to User:Shantroywells' userspace would be more appropriate. Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, it's vanity, but he's out there (kind of): [1] and [2]. I guess I'm not just my usual cranky, judgemental self this evening. - Richfife 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with extra milk. Just about meets the notability criteria. Vizjim 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand considerably or delete. The only contributer was the subject of the article, he only gets 1000 google hits (for a common name) and it doesn't mention loads of basic information (birthdate?). It doesn't cite sources. If no one but the guy himself can expand it, then he's not notable. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I am with Ultra-Loser here. There is an element of vanity without some real supporting evidence Nigel ^(Talk) 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implied Keep Please explain why wiki Andrew Drummond entry is considered notable if this one is not. Supporting evidence of notability:

http://www.coloarts.state.co.us/news/report/FY03_Annual_Report.pdf#search=%22colorado%20council%20on%20the%20arts%20shan%20wells%22, pg. 8 http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegraph.php?inc=/06-08-10/quick.htm bottom article http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews/artnetnews8-19-99.asp, seventh article down Shantroywells 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply Please don't say "Why is X included if Y can't be?" There are literally millions of Wikipedia articles. We're working as fast as we can. - Richfife 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But please follow links for supporting evidence. Thanks.66.118.223.69 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an exercise, go here: [3] (the log of new wikipedia changes), note the top entry on the list, wait 60 seconds, hit refresh, and see how many new changes have come in in front of the old top entry. Wikipedia is hard to keep on top of. - Richfife 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bog-standard working artist, nothing really notable here. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because getting three significant fellowships/grants is much more notable than we require in other areas, certainly more notable than being nominated for giving the best blowjob of the year in the opinion of 25 guys who spend their lives watching porn and blogging about it (snide reference to WP:PORN criteria). VivianDarkbloom 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just barely asserts notability, to sneak in, and could grow. Weak keep. · XP · 05:49, 1 October 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.