Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hawk

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Hawk

Ken Hawk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seems to be an autobiography (no meaningful contributions except from the subject of the article). This does not seem to be the "Ken Hawk" who does Chicaogo White Sox play by play, or any of the other Ken Hawks mentioned who get results on google news [1]. The main problem is the lack of sources, none are mentioned in the article, and I can't find any searching around. So this would apparently fail WP:BIO. --W.marsh 16:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Have tried to find some reliable sources to validate the article without success, would appear to fail under WP:BIO •CHILLDOUBT• 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is my belief that User:Radiohawk and Ken Hawk are one and the same, thus violating WP:AUTO and WP:COI. If true, then the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia even if he is notable. Someone else should write his story if he is notable. --Silverhand^Talk 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article has no reliable sources. Most of it is self-serving, and what's not can be cut to two paragraphs or less. Note that a PROD was contested. YechielMan 17:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article was created in November 2006 by User:Radiohawk, who because of his name we assume is the same as the subject. There are no sources provided. When another editor (correctly) added the 'unreferenced' tag, Radiohawk removed it with no Talk comment and no edit summary. Similary he removed the 'prod' tag with no comment whatever. Article does not include any press comments or outside reviews of his work. Appears to fail WP:BIO, and is correctly considered non-notable. EdJohnston 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not an uninteresting article, but its proper home is user space, not article space. — Athænara ✉ 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know why this hasn't yet been mentioned, either here or on WP:COI/N, but Radiohawk (Talk | contribs) and 24.154.178.248 (Talk | contribs) seem to be the same editor. — Athænara ✉ 04:17, 17 February 2007 (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.