Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Kelly

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The result of the debate was keep, more so because nominator has withdrawn.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Kelly

{{{text}}} No Guru 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for hoaxishness. --Agamemnon2 07:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with User:Agamemnon2 --SockpuppetSamuelson 09:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep (and hang nominator from flagpole). It may be badly written, but it's actually true. He's a reasonably well known journalist, particularly for those familiar with Crikey. Ambi 11:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the appalling quality of the "article", I believe my concern was well-founded. Peppering with a dozen [citation needed] tags was an asinine move, too. --Agamemnon2 08:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• yep, concur with Ambi - is possibly not all that well written but it's mostly accurate.
  • What do you mean by "mostly accurate?" Are there some parts you made up, SunKingI? Sarah Ewart 05:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rambling is removed and only encyclopedic facts are presented. Zunaid 14:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry for messing up this nomination with the {{{text}}} thing (can somebody explain to me why that happened ?) Anyway I meant to write something about vanity and non-notability. No Guru 15:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So how did you think that this published journalist for The Age and author didn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria? Uncle G 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on the nonsensical style of the article it seemed to me there was a great chance that it was an autobiographical vanity page. So I wanted others to see it and vote on it. No Guru 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You now know it isn't an autobiographical vanity page, so why are you still voting delete? Ambi 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I know it's not an vanity page now. I put the delete vote on previous comment because I was trying to clarify the nomination (which I accidently butchered). Hope this clears things up for you..No Guru 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The style is informal and "chatty", not nonsensical per se. It's very probably an autobiography. It's almost a textbook example of the verifiability, non-neutrality, and original research problems that are inherent in autobiographies. But deletion is not the only way to deal with problematic articles. There is more than one tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • At the time I listed the article here i belived there to be a high probability that it was an autobiographical vanity page and not worth the effort to clean-up. Turns out I was wrong. I admit it. I made a mistake which was a good faith error. No Guru 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
          • No worries. I don't speak for others, but it certainly didn't cross my mind that you were acting in bad faith. Uncle G 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not well written perhaps, but he seems notable. Obina 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Change my vote to keep please. This nomination was poorly conducted and not well thought out on my part. No Guru 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with rewrite and verification of info. Sarah Ewart 05:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep As nominator has recanted, can we close this early please?

pfctdayelise 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Sarah Ewart, since you asked, there are but two things I am unsure of the accuracy of - although I did not as such make either of them up. Firstly I am unsure as to the veracity of Hugo's mother's claim that restrictive Australian quarantine regulations made it impossible to import Hammy the Hampster - she may just have been breaking it gently to young Hugo that she was not paying for a cabin berth for Hammy. If someone cares to research what the quarantine regulations actually were, we can verify that. Secondly, I am not sure of the strict accuracy of calling farting a hobby. Hugo does fart an awful lot, but whether or not that consitutes a hobby may be, now that you mention it, debateable. Anyway, someone already removed that from the hobbies section, so it doesn't really matter.User:SunKing1 11.56, 1 January 2006

• Delete Article seems not worthwhile and possibly a joke. Adriantame 05:59, 4 January 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.