Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gomolvilas
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 keep, original speedy-er retracts, but tagging for expansion. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prince Gomolvilas
The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7 (non-notability), but the notability is asserted, so A7 doesn't apply. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, nevertheless the topic indiviudal seems to be suffiently notable. TSO1D 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable sources provided. Article claims lots of things, but that's meaningless unless such claims are sourced. For example, there's a claim about writing screenplays for Paramount, but there doesn't seem to be an IMDB entry under Prince Gomolvilas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- No IMDb entry because he's a playwright, not a filmmaker. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Am I correct that a lack of sources is cause to put a tag on the article and then find some sources, rather than to just delete the article? --Dmz5 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Usually that is the case, but most articles sent to AfD have other concerns besides verifiability. Caknuck 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Am I correct that a lack of sources is cause to put a tag on the article and then find some sources, rather than to just delete the article? --Dmz5 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A cursory Google search indicates that he has achieved local notoriety. A San Francisco Chronicle article featured the subject this summer. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The whole thing is pure of vanity. It makes alot of claims but it has nothing to back it up.--M8v2 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:BIO needs two coverages. Also, it's a resume. Unless someone can clean this up, it cries out for deletion. MER-C 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Besides that San Francisco Chronicle article on him Caknuck found, a couple of independent write-ups of his work too. [1][2] --Oakshade 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A Google search pulls up a bunch of articles in various papers in addition to the ones above. [3][4][5] [6][7]--Prestonkgamble 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep WP:CITE per Dmz5, notoriety per Caknuck, Oakshade and Prestonkgamble. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Subject of multiple articles, and with recent tweaks is now sourced. --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not notable to me, but (now sourced) clearly is to some people. DavyJonesLocker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep please he is notable for bio guidelines we are not built on paper Yuckfoo 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Sharkface217 04:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I was the person who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, because the article in its original form did not demonstrate the subject's notability. The improvements to the article since then are sufficient to convince me that the subject merits an article on Wikipedia. As things stand, the article is brief enough to warrant marking as a stub, but should not be deleted IMO. --stephenw32768<talk> 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Notable, but certainly needs work. StayinAnon 07:00, 11 December 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.
