Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Duggan

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 AfD closed by Anthony.bradbury, result entered by --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Duggan

Daniel Duggan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Autobiographical vanity article. No third-party references. Only two relevant Google hits, both on pages of sites run by his employers. Not notable by any Wikipedian measure. Realkyhick 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE No notability asserted. Not verifiable. Not one single solitary reliable source. All original research from the subject of the article. Blatant conflict of interest. Former General Counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Brad Patrick wrote a very apt article/announcement commonly called "shoot on sight" in September, 2006 which I totally agree with. Here's a copy: [1]. It said that "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive vanity non-notable personal profile articles that threaten WP's credibility. This is one such article. Let's be draconic here. OfficeGirl 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Believe me, I tried. Someone came along and declined the speedy because they said notability was asserted. Apparently "assertion" is defined pretty loosely these days to mean "because the author says so." So we have to drag a day-old article into AfD, and then we complain about how overloaded the AfD process is. I'd better get off my soapbox now. Realkyhick 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly saying that his work has attracted attention and that his photographs have been published in magazines in his field are assertions of notability. This isn't even slightly A7-eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Doesn't the fact that it is the subject himself making these "assertions" have any bearing? Are you saying that I could create an article about myself, make all sorts of assertions about my notability that are outright lies, and it isn't speedy-worthy? Realkyhick 17:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Yes, absolutely. This is why articles on people that are clearly not notable, or even those that are pretty obviously hoaxes are not speedy deleted (as long as there is an assertion of notability) see here. The speedy criteria are actually very narrow in this regard, and this is why WP:PROD can be quite important as a mechanism to avoid lots of AFDs. Making sure that there is proper review of any potentially valuable article is considered more important than minimising discussions, so just because these articles lead to a lot of PRODs and/or AFDs doesn't mean that they will be speedied - as we get more contributors we just need more reviewers (or change the process, of course). Cheers TigerShark 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. And as much as this case probably warrants it, let's avoid mentioning vanity in AfD's. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO requirements and presumably self-written. Duggan may well be on his way to notability by Wikipedia standards, but he is not there yet. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dhartung. Not quite yet notable, but may be there some day. Bearian 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian, Corpx Accounting4Taste 22:00, 8 September 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.