Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarred walton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Joyous (talk) 17:15, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarred walton

Not notable. TheCoffee 05:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Several good articles linked from the page; writes for a major web site. What else is required to be a journalist? User:Jarredwalton
  • The above unsigned vote is from the subject of the article. TheCoffee 06:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under new criterion or kick it over to a user page. Silence, sockpuppets! - Lucky 6.9 06:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the "new criterion" are or what qualifies for journalist. I have moved the content to my user page, however, so if writing articles that millions have read is not sufficient to be a journalist, go ahead and delete. Besides, I didn't capitalize my last name on the page name. --Jarred Walton
    • The article does assert notability of a sort, so I don't think this qualifies for CSD A7. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Read by millions"? Permit me to doubt. Delete. --Calton | Talk 08:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability of subject not established. Barnabypage 15:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, writing for a website doesn't do it for me; even if the website were notable (haven't checked into it so can't say), the question is, is this individual notable? Write a book or something. Dcarrano 16:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. See also Kristopher Kubicki. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Anandtech and keep the redirect. This kind of merge can be done easily and takes much less collective effort than a VfD; it also has the advantage of retaining verifiable information relevant to the article merged into. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:24, 23 July 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.