Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Storck

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. --Coredesat 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Storck

Benjamin Storck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:PEACOCK issues aside, Google search provides only cursory mentions of the man in notable media. Part Deux 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. WP:AUTO. If the best reference that he can come up with is a "mention" in the San Francisco Gate, he probably wouldn't belong in Wikipedia even if someone else wrote the article. Stebbins 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not speedy as there is an assertion of notability. Best to get full endorsement of an AfD. Tyrenius 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I voted speedy because the article is self-written, but I see that that is merely a guideline and not a criterion for speedy deletion. Stebbins 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete His stuff isn't too widespread and hasn't drawn enough attention. - PoliticalJunkie 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless better sources appear by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- nothing in Lexis-nexis. Bucketsofg 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Natalie 00:25, 11 March 2007 (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.