Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn White

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn White

Vanity, seems to have been created by the subject of the article Wyss 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if possible --Mysidia (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems to be verifiable. --Mysidia (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending verification. He passes the professor test if the claims of pioneering work in radio signals, extrasolar planets, etc are indeed true. - Thatdog 01:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; Keep but wikify | Celcius 02:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's ok by me to keep it, but creating one's own bio on WP violates policy. Technically, it should be deleted until someone else thinks enough of this individual to create an article about him. Wyss 03:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no policy that requires deletion of autobiography. The strictest WP:AUTO gets is to warn that an autobiographical article will probably be listed on VfD (where it is presumably debated on its own merits). Keep, notable, and slap the author's hand. — mendel ☎ 18:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to pass WP:MUSIC. There is no policy to delete pages created by their subjects, although it's not recommended. Kappa 04:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to... Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see what Wikipedia is not). (but as I said, that's the only reason I nominated it... ) Wyss 05:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy, obvious vanity. jamesgibbon 10:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems strangely dogmatic to delete an article which would certainly have been kept if the exact same text had been written by someone else. The claims in this article are verifiable and, while I don't agree entirely with the "professor test" (far too US-centric), this guy would seem to easily pass any reasonable test of notability. Soo 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nobody complains when Jimbo edits his own article. We need more of this sort of vanity, I say. Flowerparty ^talk 00:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like the guy is reasonably notable. Crypticfirefly 02:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for vanity. --Agamemnon2 11:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 13:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough in either field. Willing to reconsider if anyone bothers to verify anything in this article instead of taking the word of a random person who came by and wrote an article on himself. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.