Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Loxley

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. Vote was 23 to 10 if I counted right. Around 70%. Woohookitty 08:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Loxley

Tag added to article by User:TheMidnighters but no VfD page created. I have no opinion on the merits of the article. Kelly Martin July 7, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

  • Delete Modern poet with all of 5 hits on Google. NN -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
  • Delete for now: Non-notable, page seems to have been created by semi-vandal (might be clueless n00b) who added link to Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year as well. I will, however, change my vote if someone can provide a good reason to keep it around.—chris.lawson (talk) 7 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
  • Keep I was pleasantly surprised to see this entry, sadly it is up for deletion. I teach at York University in Canada. Loxley was a student of mine a few years ago. His name is only recently broken out into the mainstream of Canadian Literature, but he is sure to make his mark. I strongly support this article and the content to come User:Duke10 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC) — (Duke10's 1st edit.)
  • Keep My name is Amanda and I am the creator of this Kevin Loxley section. Certainly I am happy to see that at least one other person has expressed a positive comment as for keeping the page up. As stated in the section, little is known about Loxley, but his name is a major buzz in Canadian literary publications. It is believed by this scholar that Loxley has been publishing for at least six years under the radar. This interesting man and gifted scholar is very much worthy of a page here. But, if not now, don't be surprised when his page pops up again as his popularity grows. AmandaNewman 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC) — (AmandaNewman's 2nd edit.)
  • Delete. Five hits for "Kevin Loxley" and zero for "Eros of Anxiety". Niteowlneils 7 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
  • Delete, and hope his career goes well and we can add him later. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. As said earlier only five hits on Google. I couldn't find any list of publsihed works. Buzz doesn't warrant an entry, hopefully he'll come out with some works and become notable. Being a "supposed author" with "supposed writings" of whom "little is known" just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable (for now). The great thing about Wikipedia not being paper is that it's easy to add an entry later. All the best to Mr. Loxley and, if he succeeds, I'm sure there will be an article on him here.Tobycat 7 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, most of the article is conjecture and not verifiable. The external link timed out for me. Also smells a bit hoaxish, given the possible sockpuppet antics above and below. Forged votes aren't going to get you anywhere, people. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
  • Keep Marginal Keep. The article is not complete and a little vague, but I feel it has potential. Chris 12:24 (UTC) — (Forged edit actually by 67.70.13.126 (talk · contribs), whose other edits are mostly to the article in question.)
  • Keep This is my first edit, which probably limits my cradibility. However, it needs to be stated that this article, although incomplete, needs to stay. The reason that Loxley has few hits on the net is because he does not publish under his own name. I have heard about him in passing, and he is attempting to create altered opinions of artistic reception, or something like that. Anyway, it is interesting stuff. Keep it around. RichardW
  • Delete - Not notable, conjecture at best. (Luckily, my cradibility is limitless!) -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC) — (Marvin01's 7th edit.)
  • Keep; could be a decent article jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  • Delete article says he is "little known" with "minor notoriety". That settles the issue, along with the absence of Google hits and damn sock/meat puppetry. -Splash 7 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  • Keep A mass email has been send out by Amanda Newman to the Listserv of two Canadian universities, as well as Canadian Lit. publications. So, expect more debate. Loxley is the real deal. His work is only recently come to the attention of the literary world. JanP 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC) — (JanP's 2nd edit.)
    • So, we can expect an influx of newly-registered users whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to defend this article. Wonderful. To those new users, please see this page, specifically as it relates to voters who register after the nomination for deletion has been made. We welcome debate, and if Loxley is indeed "the real deal," someone will be able to produce a verifiable source for this claim. Bald assertions, however, are not very useful. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 16:10 (UTC)
If his work has come to the attention of the literary world then name some of "his work". So far there is absolutely nothing verifiable. These keep voters are all making logically contradictory claims. First, what he's written is a nebulous, tantalizing mystery then he's a Canadian literary sensation within the span of a few hours. At the worst this is a hoax, at best a case of non notable vanity. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
  • Keep Hopefully the article has some content added soon. Worthy article. Anyone with questions concerning Loxley can email me (David) at: LRAweb@gmail.com LRAWeb — (LRAWeb's 1st edit.)
    • Here are two simple questions you can answer :a) What has he written? b)What praise, success have these works received? This is the most basic information for any author and all that would be needed to establish notability. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
    • If you've got verifiable information about this person, add it to the article. Don't expect people to email you for more information. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the point that most 'Keep' voters here are trying to make is that Loxley doesn't have a following on the Internet for the simple reason, he does not publish under his own name. I strongly stand behind Amanda for attempting to uncover some knowledge about him. brmc69 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC) — (brmc69's 1st edit.)
  • Delete If he doesn't publish under his own name, why not start an article about the name he's notable under? Wikipedia is not an avenue for publicity; once Mr. Loxley is notable, come back and make an article then. As it stands now, he does not meet the standards for notability. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable. Make an article for his pseudonym, if it's notable. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, if the claims made in the article can be verified. If not, delete with our best wishes for Mr. Loxley's future notability. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
  • Delete - Self-identified as not notable, yet. Come back when he is. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whenever "little is known" about someone who is 25 years old it's usually because he's not noteworthy. This isn't some mysterious figure of antiquity. I think "supposed" writings says it all. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  • Keep This article can always be deleted later, if he does not become famous or noteworthy. User:Duke10, User:AmandaNewman, and User:LRAweb made strong arguments. However, User:TheMidnighters is right. Put up some of his work! -Hyad July 7, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
    • Strong arguments? They consist of, "No, really, he's going to be famous, and we'll dig up some stuff on him really soon!" AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
    • "This article can always be deleted later, if he does not become famous or noteworthy." Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be saying "This article can always be created later, if he does become famous or noteworthy." KissL 08:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is completely rewritten (well). Regardless of the actual notability of this alleged person, the article itself is a heap of ambiguous unsupported claims.
  • Delete. I follow the Canadian literature circuit fairly closely and have and have never heard of him. And sock puppets are not good. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 7, 2005 23:10 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article admits to no current notability, therefore NN. If he becomes notable, he will get an article then. Wikipedia can't be used to promote or predict this. --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this guy makes it big, he'll get an article then. Right now he's not notable. Not to mention sock-puppet supported. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Another case of influx of sock- or probably meatpuppets (=people recruited specifically to swing the VFD vote) supporting someone only locally prominent - if even that. Another "collegial" influx prank to support a "friend's" inclusion to Wikipedia. Has anyone invented a good name for that phenomena yet? - Skysmith 8 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. There is no indication of notability and this certainly smells like a prank, judging by the "support" for it. On the off chance that it's not a prank, I don't think anyone will miss the article at this stage of his "career". Bobbis 8 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • Delete- sufficient reasons have already been given.--Bhadani 05:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, SLX, whatever. KissL 08:01, 12 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.