Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gurrie

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. Mo0[talk] 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Gurrie

Seems there are at least two other editors who would disagree with me that this article fails WP:BIO by a longshot, so I humbly nominate this article for AFD to decide. hateless 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE!!! I can vouch for the authenticity of this man who is a leading member of the LSE student body and deserves representation on this website. Others voting for "delete" simply do not appreciate the great impact this man has had on the students of LSE. This article is certainly not a "joke" or pure "vanity" and I am shocked that it could be misconstrued as a hoax! Please keep this entry!
• DO NOT DELETE this is a serious article about a hugely popular activist at the LSE. Maybe the 'vanity' actually stems from the rest of you because you don't have your own article whereas Mike does. This is a serious article that a lot of time and effort has been offered by me and another editor. Tír Eoghain abú 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't get less notable with a vanishing machine. If this wasn't written by the subject or his friend I'll eat the first hat I find. Opabinia regalis 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanihoaxty. ~ trialsanderrors
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 03:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/hoax —Mets501^talk 07:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, vanity article. --Coredesat 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails notability threshold of WP:BIO; Aquilina 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and hit author on the head with a large, heavy object. Rob 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not yet notable. Come back when he's in the cabinet. ;)
  (What is it with "do not delete" votes? They seem to be a sure-fire way of recognising when an article needs to be deleted...) — Haeleth Talk 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Normally I don't bother to vote on these obvious vanity pages that will be deleted anyway, but that first "Do not delete" comment made me have to. Stev0 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Inner Earth 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as failing WP:BIO and WP:VAIN as well as WP:STONED LOSER if that criterion existed. Quite aside from the unsourced assertions that are just this side of hoaxing, what element of WP:BIO does this unremarkable kid remotely come close to fulfilling? RGTraynor 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Since you asked I would guess WP:PORN BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In fact, why was this not speedied? Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No real grounds upon which to do so, really. The article asserts notability. RGTraynor 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Nothing to show for it on Google. --Slgrandson 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, mediocre attempt to get on Wikipedia. Vanity. Not even close to being notable. —EdGl 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mike Gurrie is a renowned figure in student politics at the London School of Economics. His election campaign and involvement in issues pertinent to students means he has a high level of name recognition (the vast majority of a student body of 8,000 know him by both name and face). The transient nature of student politics, and the poor documentation of them due to the logistical limitations of student media, means that it is important that this individual, who made a significant contribution to local politics and wellbeing, should be remembered. Mike Gurrie satisfies the requirements of WP:BIO as he has both made a widely recognised contribution to his specific field (which requires enduring historical record) and is a major local political figure who received significant press coverage. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is not just to include information which is contained elsewhere, but to incorporate and preserve unique articles which would otherwise be forgotten. Mike Gurrie has no connection to the article, which was in fact envisaged and written by a senior reporter at The Beaver, the student newspaper at the LSE (which is itself worthy of an article). Consequently, the article is not convoluted by vanity. May I add that "detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Please, preserve the article- it is inoffensive and will bring laughter to those from the LSE from years to come as they recollect events otherwise forgotten. Chriswarnock 00:38, 8 June
• Delete. Oh wow I've never seen a worse vanity page. Pictures of his parents? Gimme a break... (Have they seen this atrocity?) Fails WP:BIO and WP:STONED LOSER per RGTraynor. Grandmasterka 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mangojuice^talk 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, oh, meat puppet alert. OK, buddies of Mike Gurrie, here is what you can do to preserve your friend's entry for all eternity:

1. Steal it. WP is free documentation, just go to File > Save As... > Webpage complete and post it on the LSE student website.
2. Get Mike to create an account and turn it into his user page. Don't forget the {{user page}} tag.
3. Petition for an entry in WP:BJAODN. I would even support it.

Mildy amusing it is. Encyclopedic it's not. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 8 June 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.