Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabel Sasser

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 merge. W.marsh 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabel Sasser

Article does not describe a notable person per WP:NN and WP:BIO guidelines. Additionally, a PROD was put on this article, and it was removed WITHOUT substancial improvement to this article OR defense of the notability of this subject. To be honest, it reads like a vanity article. It should be deleted. --Jayron32 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Panic (company). - Richfife 04:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep? Extend? I just discovered this page thanks to Google Alerts. I could add a whole lot of content to this entry to make it significantly more, well, significant. I can certainly elaborate on my contributions to the field of computer software design, web sites, etc., dating back to 1994 at least and including many (honest) industry firsts. Unfortunately, it would feel incredbily awkward to write about myself, and I'm not even sure that's allowed under Wikipedia rules. Any advice? Can I enlist good friend Steven Frank to improve this entry and give it one last chcance before you guys delete it? If not, no sweat. Thanks! - Cabel 66.93.40.145 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Writing about yourself isn't actually outright forbidden (a lot of people are mistaken about this), but it's strongly discouraged: Vanity and Autobiography. The general rule of thumb is that if no one is independently inspired to write about you, then you're probably not notable enough to have an article. By extension, you really shouldn't enlist other people to write about you either. However, if you want to add something to the discussion page of the article proper, I'll consider folding it in as a disinterested party who had never heard of you before last night. No promises. Notability, verifiability and reliable source rules still apply, so I will have to assume that everything you say is a lie until I can find (or you can provide) a second source to back it up. - Richfife 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reply also Merge to Panic (company) is a good idea. I want to second everything that Richfife has to say. Writing about yourself (OR writing about your buddies OR getting your buddies to write about you) feels wrong. It is still possible to do, but you had BETTER make sure you have LOTS of goot citations from third parties as to your notability. Copious citations from reputable press would be a good start. Do people in major newsmagazines write about you? Do you appear in any Forbes list or equivalent? Does a textbook cite you as an authority in your field? Do others cite your work? Has a major publication named you to its "Top 100 most" whatever list? If any of these are true, then CITE THE SOURCES for the rest of us to check out. If you can do that, and do it many times, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 02:02, 28 September 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.