Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Mondschein2

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Mondschein and Corporate Mofo

• Comment Do you all have any idea how crushing it is to have people arguing to have the little bio page you set up for yourself deleted? I would argue for non-deletion based on several things:
• I write for several publications with a circulation of more than 5,000 (Nerve and Renaissance being two)
• Corporate Mofo (which doesn't need its own entry) is linked to Fark, a high-traffic newsfilter, and my Matrix analysis thereon garnered a lot of media attention
• I have two books coming out
• It's helpful to include my qualifications for editing those obscure fencing articles.

See 1st AfD in June. The person gets 212 UNIQUE Google hits (and he's internet personality!), many of them are WP mirros, the ezine has alexa rank of 803,572. The ezine was {prod} but the mark was removed by, guess, user:Ken Mondschein.

• Delete not notable. Renata 03:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, nn. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in no way notable at all Remohol 03:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very unnotable. StarTrek 06:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While I agree with this deletion, please make sure to explain user:Ken Mondschein why the articles were deleted. His article contributions in obscure fencing topics are very valuable. Thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• the article seems to indicate he's been published. if that can be verified it might be a basis for keeping, but at the moment, no vote Jcuk 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn

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.