Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Freedman (Magician)

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 keep. bainer (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Freedman (Magician)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves, their direct family or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Humbledof (talk • contribs) .

• Comment no vote here, but this was nominated before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Freedman) with no consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep THE KING 10:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but currently needs a severe rewrite to be less of a vanity press release. -- FRCP11 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup required. Some of the information is vanity and/or unverifiable, but the Ghits and IMDB article support notability. Paddles 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep i'm satisfied with notability, but the article is pretty un-encyclopedic in tone. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies notability, but cleanup per above Teke 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as vanity (note originator of article). Mr. Freedman is notable enough, but as an advertisement (in addition to vanity), it might be best to scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete vanity, a few verified facts amongst many unverified --Oldadder 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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.