Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Cutaneum

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn); article was totally rewritten after nomination. —Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 2007-04-17 11:01Z

[edit] Captain Cutaneum

Captain Cutaneum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is not notable, poorly written and unverefied. I tried to speedy it, but it was contested. I withdraw my nomination, as long as the article is not kept in the current garbage form. RogueNinja_talk 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I've updated it; give it a look. --Charlene 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I would have speedied it as CSD A7. YechielMan 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oh boy. I assumed it was some kind of hoax. I googled. He really does exist - he's some kind of public safety character in the Phoenix area, and he's played by a reputable dermatologist. We have reliable sources ([1] and [2], as well as [3] - don't know if a Publishers Weekly blog is a RS), but the article needs to be rewritten. But before I do it, does he pass - well, I'm not even sure what policy this would fall under. --Charlene 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep 1 hit in Factiva hinted at notability and sure enough, Google confirmes it: [4], [5], [6], and [7] (same as the Factiva article) are all independent detailed write-ups of this cartoon character. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:30Z

Comment In that case, delete as advertisement RogueNinja_talk 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hold on: I'm writing a new, NPOV, substantiated article based on Google results. The original article isn't an ad per se, though: it's just a bunch of very sensible skin care tips that don't really belong under this article heading. --Charlene 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the subject is notable, then the solution to poorly written prose is to rewrite, not delete. I've stubbed the article to remove the tips, will add the references later because I need to go afk now. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 03:38Z

I'm rewriting it; no need to. By the way, he's mentioned not just in local newspapers but also as the sole subject of a major article in one of the world's most important dermatology journals. That's notable, so I vote Strong keep. --Charlene 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, looks like this guy is in fact notable as per the plentiful reliable sources cited above. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm new to this. Presidentlines 04:28, 17 April 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.