Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Skrebowski

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 of the debate was keep. Royboycrashfan 13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Skrebowski

Trade-pub editor (for a red-linked pub put out by a red-linked org). Reads like a vanity bio/CV. Was Prod'ed, by tag removed by User:Monicasdude. Calton | Talk 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: google shows [1] about 20,000 hits on his name, including publications and external interviews from some apparently notable websites and publications. Looks to be a notable editor. Article needs to assert notability though. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep If the reds go away, give it sixty days for links and cleanup. T K E 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Editor of notable trade publication regularly cited by news media. If you don't like the redlinks, write the articles; it's not like Wikipedia is finished and all notable subjects already have articles. Monicasdude 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I voted a Keep. The author of the article in wikifying has the burden of active links, not myself. Lose the attitute. T K E 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was aimed at the nominator; I was just trying to repeat my prod comment from memory. If I'd aimed it at you, I'd have indented it so it was more clearly under yours. Monicasdude 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Under what basis do you suggest this is a bad-faith nomination? Fagstein 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

    The nominator's history. Monicasdude 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Google suggests some notability. Fagstein 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep until someone makes a Petroleum Review article... then merge to that article. Skrebowski is less notable than the publication he edits. No evidence this is a bad faith nomination so auto-speedy out of process is not called for.--Isotope23 18:43, 6 April 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.