Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Coyne

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. Mailer Diablo 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Coyne

Non-notable. Low google hits.Hasn't dones anything particularly noteworthy.Vanity/advertising for his websites and podcasts. The JPS 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only possible claim to fame is this "PodFest", but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no indication it's popular yet. Fagstein 06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank for bitjobs.net[1] is not very impressive. not notable. -MrFizyx 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• With such insightful people as yourself "policing" Wikipedia, I'm sure it won't be long before it declines into something even more meaningless than it is at the moment. Who are any of you to say whether something is noteworthy or not? Also, why has it only been flagged as "vanity/advertising" now after being on here since 11th July last year? Phill.corbett 07:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that it has taken since July to get nominated for deletion is a marker of its lack of notability. It means its taken this long for someone to even find it -- I only found it because I was disambiguating links to Newcastle. If you think that wikipedia is "meaningless... at the moment" then you shouldn't be concerned with your article being deleted. Regards. The JPS 11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you belive the article to be notable make your case. Blanking out the debate page and making insults won't get you anywhere. -MrFizyx 14:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you acuse me of advertising someone elses website when you said yourself it's taken this long to get anyone to notice it? What would be the point? Isn't Wikipedia a place for people to write articles about people, subjects and places regardless of whether they have a good Alexa rating or so many millions of Google hits or whether three people believe it is noteworthy or not. -Phill.corbett 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Phill, Alexa and Google are just tools we can use to compare how well known people, blogs, podcasts, bands, etc. are. It is usually not the end of the story and some topics are notable that don't register well. The question before us here is whether or not Phil Coyne has done something remarkable and verifiable that distinguishes himself from all other individuals with blogs/podcasts (we can't cover everything/everyone). We also try to follow criteria that have been agreed upon by more than the 3 or 4 people who are voting in this debate (see e.g. WP:BIO, WP:WEB). Also, spam does find its way into wikipedia (not to say your article is just spam), and even if human editors don't see it, search engines do--this is typically what the spammers want to increase their rank on internet search results. -MrFizyx 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS, I think. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 22 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.