Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Mike McGee

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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mighty Mike McGee

Vanity Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All due respect to Mr. McGee, but Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages autobiographical articles, and lay out appropriate criteria for notability and verifiability which also are not being met. Under these circumstances article is defined as vanity per WP terminology. Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable and the information is verifiable. Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. No they haven't. There have been some cats and some bot edits and that's it. Right now I'm neutral- he seems to have won some championships but I have no idea how important they are in the scope of poetry. --Wafulz 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough; the article could use some formatting and editing... and, um, does the world really need to know how he solves his personal sanitation issues? Needs, uh, cleanup. --Brianyoumans 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and as per nomination. Dwain 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets basic standards, "vanity" isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up if there's an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- At Wikipedia: Vanity: "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." So Badlydrawnjeff is technically correct that vanity is not in itself a reason to delete. I should have more exact in the word I used as primary reason to delete. It is non-notability...in the form of autobiographical vanity. In this case vanity is a valid reason to delete insofar as it is an autobiographical article about someone whose notability is not at current on an encyclopedic level. Article therefore does not and cannot meet basic standards. A clean up may make article itself more encyclopedic, but has no effect on lack of notability. Green hornet 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Clearly a valid article. Unfocused 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

^Delete Not notable w/ 100 google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Top google hits are for myspace and wikipedia.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Definitely needs cleanup. McGee does appear to be known in the field of Slam poetry, of which I am no authority. Out of his 101 unique Ghits, many are listings and a few personal websites and blogs. Some certainly do acknowledge him as World Open Slam Poetry champion. There was this article on him on a site with Alexa rank in the 1.2 millionsths. However, no hits on poetryslam.com, no hits on poets.org. Ohconfucius 02:59, 4 November 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.