Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landon Knepp

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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landon Knepp

Landon Knepp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bumped from speedy. Asserts notability, but not impressively so: appears to have gotten some local coverage for some student silliness. WP:BIO refers. Sandstein 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete How is he notable? Getting hit in the head as a kid, hosting a college news show? Appears to fail WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. C56C 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The assertion of notability is there (so it's not speedy-able), but it is quite weak. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfunny and unremarkable. Nothing here even hints at noteworthiness. Caknuck 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia deletion policy states, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." That one thinks the controversy described is "unfunny" seems entirely irrelevant. While not a national celebrity, news coverage affirms that this figure and the controversy in which he is involved is at least as notable and/or relevant as other similar local controversies such as the Redbud Woods controversy. Perhaps a tag to expand the article is an order.Namikiw 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • On the contrary. For an article that states its subject is a college "humorist", organizing a one-off, minor pseudo-protest that backfires (ie. isn't funny) is not notable. The sources provided do not indicate any controversy. And the difference between this and the Redbud Woods controversy is that with Redbud, the New York Times saw fit to publish multiple articles about the situation, whereas the Ball State paper couldn't be bothered with publishing more than a one-paragraph blurb about the incident after it happened. Based on the information presented, the subject and the incident are no more notable than I was when I was a "campus personality" at my college 12 years ago. And I don't have a Wikipedia article. Caknuck 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Landon Knepp failed at being a DJ. That isn't covered in WP:BIO. Knepp doesn't show up in any of the sources. 13 unique google hits?! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • According to WP:BIO itself, WP:BIO "is not wikipedia policy" so it should not be used as a sole basis for deletion.
  • Lack of presence on the internet doesn't necessarily reflect lack of notability.
  • Knepp does show up in the sources - both in the SETV video and this article[1] as the organizer of the the controversial event. Namikiw 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO was not my sole basis for deletion. I also stated that he had 13 unique google hits. 13 is very low. I also stated that he failed at being a DJ. These reasons with the fact that he miserably fails WP:BIO are reasons enough.
  • Lack of presence on th internet does not reflect lack of notability. However, a lack of presence, and a lack of multiple independent reliable sources to prove verifiability does reflect lack of notability.
  • I don't see Knepp's name on this link [2] or this link [3]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read page 2 of this article?[4] How can you you make assertions if you're not reading the sources? Namikiw 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (from WP:BIO). In my opinion someone who doesn't appear anywhere on the first page of an article doesn't come even close to being considered the primary subject of said article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The controversial event is in the Daily News for the fourth straight day

[5] Also, the discussion for the original article is reaching record lengths with 52 comments. [6] — Dmurtbergx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.