Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Acer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Acer

Article is about an insignifant/unnotable person. Too little information on somebody who is not relevant or important other than in extremely esoteric circles. Mongoleer 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He looks plenty notable to me. Popular comedian, magician, has appeared in a feature film, gets 93 000 hits on Google. This gushing bio points out that he's written for many popular programmes on the telly and has appeared repeatedly at Just for Laughs. On top of all this, a flick through Google seems to suggest that, within the field of "magic", he's really bloody popular. Why are we deleting our article on this fellow, again? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Because he is of little importance to anybody not involved the secretive world of magic and his credits are negligable. The article has very little information in it and if we were to list every child's party magician that has ever despoiled the face of the earth we would be wasting a lot of server space. Mongoleer 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
every child's party magician that has ever despoiled the face of the earth? Please read WP:CIV before making such statements. IrishGuy talk 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with the other article you nominated for deletion Irishguy, I really could care less about it. I just believe that this is a worthless article. My comments about magic being a mere child's amusement are both civil and true and violate no policy. David Acer is no more accomplished than a menial laborer, (not to mention that his choice of proffession is about as respectable).Mongoleer 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't nominate the other article for deletion. I merely placed an importance tag on it. Someone else took it to AfD. You are a confirmed sockpuppet and are merely lashing out because your article is under review. IrishGuy talk 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if the nomination was made in bad faith then the article should not be deleted. GrapePie 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad faith/WP:POINT nomination. NawlinWiki 03:33, 1 August 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.