Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Miner

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, since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Miner

Anthony Miner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable hair stylist. Corvus cornix_talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Anthony is also the author of several books and a reality television director. I believe that these notable contributions, combined with his work on several television shows, make him worthy of the subject of a Wikipedia article. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no reliable sources for either of those claims. imdb doesn't mention him as a director of anything, and there are no links to reliable sources concerning the notability of his books. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • • I am Anthony Miner – I spent the last the 13 years as a celebrity hair stylist. Clients include George Clooney – Hilary Swank – Wayne Brady – Films include Pirate of the Caribbean. I was nominated for Best Period Hair Styling - Television (For a Single Episode of a Regular Series - Sitcom, Drama or Daytime)Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild Awards. My latest book, “If you like chocolate eat chocolate.” Available February 1, 2008 on Amazon.com and bookstores. My isbn is # 1-4196-8880-4 – I would really like to be a part of the Wikipedia community. Please reconsider my deletion. 76.90.53.122 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. [[WP:N|Notability] should be determined by those who do not have a conflict of interest. I vote to delete a not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • A biographical entry about a writer is neither spam nor self-promotion necessarily. If there are no reliable sources for a certain claim yet, then the article should be marked as unsourced, not marked for deletion. If I wrote the article prematurely (i.e. before the books were released and adequate sources were made available), that should not doom the article to deletion. I don't believe a fair vote can be made until after the books are released...which is in a mere matter of days. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There are only three links in all of Google that even show that the book exists, and none of them is a neutral source. Only one Google hit for his supposed other book. And the article doesn't even mention anything about directing reality tv. Corvus cornix_talk 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. Mr Miner should be welcomed into the Wikipedia community, but this article should not be welcomed into the Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep and stubify. His IMBd page has a ton on it for just his work as a hair stylist, so it seems like at least that work is notable in its own right. Unless sources can be provided for his directing and books, we'll have to remove that content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we include bios on everyone with 31 or more credits on IMDb, that's gonna be a h_ck of a lot people presently known only to trivia-mongers. —SlamDiego_←T 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's wait until the books come out in the next few days/weeks so we can get the sources, shall we? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, let's not. If these books were notable, there would be some notice of them prior to their publication. And I'm still waiting for evidence of the reality TV shows. Note that Ryangibsonstewart is the original creator of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with your points on notability, but object to the suggestion that the opinion of RyanGibsonStewart should be discounted because of his rôle as creätor of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Nowhere did I say that his opinion should be discounted, I am merely pointing out a fact which is important for the closing admin to know. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Why is it important for the closing admin to know? —SlamDiego_←T 08:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
            • It's as important as knowing whether somebody has any other edits to their credit. It's an indication of potential bias. I am not saying that there IS bias, but it's a fact that the admin should know. Corvus cornix_talk 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
              • And how — other than by giving the opinion less weight to off-set the potential bias — could the closing admin possibly adjust for this potential? —SlamDiego_←T 07:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unable to find any reliable sources about this person. According to IMDB, he has been nominated for one award, but has no listings for winning awards. [1] So with only a string of work credits and books that don't appear to be notable, he doesn't clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete given the absence of sources. If and when there are more reliable sources indicating notability, the article can be restored. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it looks like most everybody is voting to delete the page. When sources become available for Anthony's work, how does one go about nominating an article for restoration? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources provided that sufficiently establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 03:06, 27 January 2008 (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.