Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasse Gjertsen
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 Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lasse Gjertsen
Non-notable animator? IMO appearing on Youtube hardly qualifies one for a Wiki entry. Fails WP:BIO --Edchilvers 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:BIO, no sources for the unclear assertion of notability. Sandstein 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - lots of blog entries and whatnot, but no reliable sources. -- Whpq 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I've got alot of trouble ignoring 484,000 ghits for such an uncommon name. --Oakshade 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment counting ghits is not research (per User:Uncle G). Have you found any articles which would be sufficiently reliable and contain enough information for an encyclopaedic article? Ohconfucius 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've clashed with that user before and respectfully don't feel that an essay by one user should be the fundamental dictation of the consensus driven Wikipedia. --Oakshade 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - When I googled, and saw the search results, my first reaction was that this guy was likely notable. But in combing through a lot of the results, I simply could not find any reliable sources, just lots of blog links. I am quite open to a keep if somebody can dig up reliable sources. -- Whpq 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Having once had a difference of opinion with someone is not reason enough to ignore sense in what he says, especially when backed by wikipedia policy. Whpq has correctly pointed out that in many cases, apparent notability often turns up as google-bombing upon further investigation. It is a lazy approach to stop researching when you see >10,000 Ghits. Keep digging and find us something which would swing the debate. Ohconfucius 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment counting ghits is not research (per User:Uncle G). Have you found any articles which would be sufficiently reliable and contain enough information for an encyclopaedic article? Ohconfucius 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ohconfucius 03:08, 8 December 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.
