Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dougg Cheal

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 of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dougg Cheal

No evidence of notability given in the article, none apparent via Google. Seems like a vanity page to me. Uucp 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. ~MDD4696 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Tbeatty 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sheehan (Talk) 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Kukini 05:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article says that "In his academic career as a psychologist and criminologist ... He is often cited for his work". We have to assume good faith that this is true, and that it occurs in texts that are not online. I have placed a notability tag, so that these citations can be referenced. I think that this AfD should be stopped, and, if necessary, relisted, should the citations not be forthcoming. If they are, they article needs to be changed so that the academic work is the emphasis. I have left a note on User talk:Justin sane58, who started this article.Tyrenius 07:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We have to assume good faith that this is true. No, actually we don't -- though perhaps you have a different "we" in mind when you use that word. So unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia has dumped its basic standards of verifiability and citation, there is no "we" (assuming, of course, you are not royalty, a newspaper editor, or have a tapeworm). --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is 20 years old. Are we to believe someone this young is both a psychologist and criminologist, especially with no sources listed? My good judgement says no, and the amateurish photo doesn't help much. This seems like a clear cut case of someone writing their own NN bio. VegaDark 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That is my POV too, but it doesn't accord with:
===AfD etiquette===
*Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers ... assume good faith before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.
*Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised.
This appears to be a new editor Justin sane58and I feel there should have been dialogue in the first instance (especially as the editor has said it is not a vanity article), at least to ask for verification of the claims. There is no dialogue on the article discussion page and no warning on the user talk page (until I put something there). I feel this is lacking in communication and etiquette, when the edit appears to have been made in good faith, even if lack of knowledge of guidelines, which one must expect from a new editor. I feel they deserve a better level of interaction with the existing community, rather than a slap in the face the first time they have a go at editing. Tyrenius 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
...when the edit appears to have been made in good faith Since this is an obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, I'd say, no, this isn't "good faith." --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andy Saunders 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service. george 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a resume service, nor MySpace. --Calton | Talk 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- non notable bio. The El Reyko 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is pretty obviously a vanity page. He probably majored in criminology and psychology. In fact, he's probably still majoring in it; he's 20 years old. JDoorjam Talk 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be hoax ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme speedy delete, one Google hit which is not a Wikipedia page. WP:V supremely supercedes WP:AGF. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 15 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.