Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Mazmanian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. SushiGeek 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lance Mazmanian
Appears to be a vanity page, mainly on the supposition that association with famous people is enough to have your own article. I don't think he passes Wikipedia:Notability (people), unless being Audrey Tautou's unconfirmed fiancee counts. Anyway, I'm somewhat on the fence, but wanted to see what others think. Girolamo Savonarola 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete The article tries to assert notability, but I don't think there's enough notability to go around. -- Kicking222 16:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have reluctantly changed my vote to "Delete". Sorry. Doomguard 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's been here since 2004; there ought to be a statute of limitations on AFD noms. --AlexWCovington (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I fail to see how the one has anything to do with the other. Girolamo Savonarola 09:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep ironically it seems he would rather it was deleted! but i say it should stay. notable for sure.Delete i am afraid i must change my vote to delete. i must concede that at this time he is non-notable as per wiki policy. Publisher dude 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Keep after reading Doomguards' comment, I would say that this is a borderline case, but it has enough notability. The amount of time the article has existed should not matter. Lapinmies 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Delete, the list of magazines seems to be dubious, other claims are not significant enough for a keep. Now it looks like Mazmanian just associates with famous people. Lapinmies 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep, Why get rid of a page that is so true?gretas dude
- Keep Enough notability to keep the article. Idaho spud 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here's Mazmanian's own thoughts on the matter. While his request for deletion is itself not sufficient, I believe that most of the reasons he mentions are consistent with my point. source Girolamo Savonarola 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- THEY'RE TRYING to KILL ME...
- At last! I just got an e-mail from my buddy John Couse (aka "Doom Guard") who tells me that Wikipedia's "Lance Mazmanian" Page has been nominated for deletion. John's apparently adamant that the page remain, being a big fan of Dave Hargrave, and Arduin, and all. Myself, I'm happy to see the page burn. As a few of you well know, I've never liked that Wikipedia entry. It was started a long time ago by some well-meaning chap, but was so preposterous upon origination that it was frankly embarrassing (like some other similar bullshit that's occurred elsewhere (IMDb) by the hands of individuals with benevolent if completely unwelcome intent). Since the page appeared, I've had a couple of friends go in and tweak it to bare bones on occasion, because I was originally told the entry would not survive a deletion request. But even in a minimal format, the Wikipedia "Mazmanian" write-up is still premature and silly. Why? Well, while I'm indeed sitting in a pocket-universe of people who are definitely kicking-ass and taking names, I myself am in more of a "ramping-up" mode...like 20-million other boys and girls. So, while I appreciate the interview requests and other such fabulous stuff, it's all rubbish right now...until such time that it isn't. Besides, the people who read this so-called "blog" and visit my website number in four-digits a week... This is more than enough communication for the time being, and better yet, it's information that originates with and from the source. So please, Wikipedia, by all means delete the bastard! But do come and talk to me in a year or so...L.
-
- i must apologize for what i have said here as i have been speaking out of turn. i will refrain from making further foolish comments and i will agree to agree with your comments Girolamo Savonarola that he is non-notable at this time. i have not been wise to speak out of turn as i have and you are correct that he asserts his own non-notability and i must respect that. apologies to everyone for any trouble. Publisher dude 18:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Has been featured in more than four publications--so why is the nom so certain he isn't notable‽ Apparently is among the elite of the fine arts and someone took the time to write an article on him in the IMDB. Nom, stop wasting our time!--Primetime 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, not vanity... if he's an award-winning poet, I'd say we could keep this, though I'd like to see a source on that.Mangojuice 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep, if he really is an award-winning poet like the article states. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The "award-winning" modifier was added by User:Publisher dude on April 16th. A look at the history also shows that this modifer was once placed before the photographer description, while only listing him as a published poet. Publisher dude, can we have a source? Girolamo Savonarola 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment i have embarrassed myself by being too passionate about all this and i must disengage from this process with apologies to anyone i may have offended, including Girolamo Savonarola. Publisher dude 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment the source is apparently IMDB: [1]. I now say delete as the only claim to notability is unreliable. Mangojuice 02:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak Keep Award or not the subject is notable . 69.230.173.152 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Once again, an anonymous vote from an IP with no edit history. Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete - four poems published? My grandmother had four poems published! He paid somebody to teach him some stuff? I paid people to teach me some stuff! He worked crews on a couple of movies and was a bit actor in a couple more? We're going to have to make articles on half of L.A.! No offence, but I've seen MySpace pages with more heft. - DavidWBrooks 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey! You're a newspaper reporter just like the other David Brooks and you have his sense of humor, too! He's god to me (watch him every Friday on The Newshour.)--Primetime 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly not notable. Wikipedia is not the LA phonebook. beekman 12:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Currently NN. Startup account 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Account created on April 25.--Primetime 20:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. - Runcorn 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per DavidWBrooks. -- No Guru 20:11, 27 April 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.