Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Richard Hines, III

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. Singularity 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Richard Hines, III

Benjamin Richard Hines, III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Seems to probably fail notability, and also not be sourced - seems autobiographical. P.S. afraid I'm a little unsure of the system so am probably doing this wrong! -Hunting dog (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Your nomination looks good to me. Well spotted! This article is a good speedy delete candidate. Article does not assert notability, and posted by a single purpose user so probably a conflict of interest as well. Debate (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, arguably asserts notability, but doesn't show it through any sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm undecided about whether this article actually asserts notability; it does not, however, demonstrate it. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not a direct rebuttal, more a reflection, but if asserting notability simply involves a claim to have sold something to socialites and corporations (specifically, in this instance, a company director and a law firm) then it's a very low hurdle indeed to overcome, and somewhat contrary to the kid gloves approach generally implied per WP:BLP. Debate (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree; I'm thinking more about the last sentence, full of unsourced claims about running for city council, performing at the Met, and so on. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment LOL. Thankfully for my own privacy, neither running for City Council (per WP:POLITICIAN), nor writing a book (per WP:CREATIVE) nor performing at the MET (per WP:ENTERTAINER) are sufficient of themselves to establish notability. Unfortunately, while what constitutes notability is moderately well defined, what constitutes asserting notability seems to be largely a judgment call... Debate (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there is no sources whatsoever, and all other links seem to be linking to this article on Wikipedia. Not a single shred of evidence.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability. I notice the article on King & Spalding, an Atlanta law firm, does not mention their "famous" art collection. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable; Google reveals nothing convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:29, 25 May 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.