Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jacob

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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jacob

Vanity :--Chris Griswold | talk | contribs 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 06:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put just a little more effort into your nominations. Actually writing a reason for deletion, rather than just spitting forth the epithet "vanity" (autobiographical articles, while unfortunate, need not be deleted), would be a definite plus here. Oh, and if you could use a less florid signature, that'd be great, too. I've taken the liberty of reducing the five-line monstrosity on this subpage. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Chris Griswold 08:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO & WP:VAIN miserably. -- Scientizzle 06:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the new information below, but it needs a de-POV cleanup & better sourcing. -- Scientizzle 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice per above. --Daniel Olsen 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hurler with Wexford GAA, a prominient team in Ireland, who play at the highest level. Catchpole 07:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep in that he plays for a top-level team in a relatively well-known sport. The article will need to be cleaned up if kept, though, as it reads as though it was written by a rabid fan (which is different to WP:VAIN, which I can't see any evidence of in this article at all). BigHaz 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — No sources, no verifibility, so fails WP:BIO. If sources were added and it was re-written, it could be kept Martinp23 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Actually quite simple to verify, type Michael Jacob Wexford into google, and we find this [1]. Catchpole 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but only if rewritten. He is playing a national sport at the highest level possible (and there's a reliable link in the article). Dlyons493 Talk 12:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. As an athlete playing for a team at the highest possible level, he's notable per WP:BIO. Srose (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. SliceNYC 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep County level hurling is essentially the highest level of what is a massive sport in Ireland, albeit a sport only reasonably well known elsewhere. As this is a player who has played at this highest level (and done ok at that level so far in his career), he certainly counts as notable. Verifiable data is now there in the form of a link to an Radio Telefís Éireann report of a top-level match. Having said all that, the article does look a mess. Robotforaday 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep unless the nominator can explain how this is vanity and why it isn't notable. RFerreira 07:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per information above From the lack of information, particularly about notability and the author's having really only having written that article and added links to it, it appeared just like the majority of vanity articles I have seen. It appears that the subject may in fact be notable, so I am voting keep, but it does need to be cleaned up.--Chris Griswold 08:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cant understand why this was nominated in the first place . An inter county huler is far more notible than most articials here (Gnevin 22:18, 17 August 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.