Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronan Handcock
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 delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ronan Handcock
I think the consensus is that being a failed game show contestant is not sufficient for notability. Merely being the heir to a barony, without otherwise doing anything remarkable, is not notable either. Deranged bulbasaur 14:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, only 73 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 15:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. This is entirely non-notable, this AfD does not even need to exist. It should be {{db-bio}}. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Also, if you know its consensus, you should use CSD or {{prod}}. AfD is only for controversial debates. Too many people nom for AfD when it could be deleted elsewise. AfD is only for controversy, or if {{prod}} is contested.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prod is a waste of time on very new articles, because they're still getting attention and will almost inevitably be de-prodded. I didn't use speedy deletion here because it has generated local press, and local interest topics are a contentious issue. Also, there's no consensus on whether people with hereditary titles have any sort of inherent notability. In any case, I don't know why you're upbraiding me about it when you could just mark the article for speedy deletion if you think it fits the criteria and be done with it. There's no reason that this AfD should prevent you from doing that. Deranged bulbasaur 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did mark it for speedy under {{db-bio}}, but someone removed it one the grounds that the AfD discussion was already in place.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Prod is a waste of time on very new articles, because they're still getting attention and will almost inevitably be de-prodded. I didn't use speedy deletion here because it has generated local press, and local interest topics are a contentious issue. Also, there's no consensus on whether people with hereditary titles have any sort of inherent notability. In any case, I don't know why you're upbraiding me about it when you could just mark the article for speedy deletion if you think it fits the criteria and be done with it. There's no reason that this AfD should prevent you from doing that. Deranged bulbasaur 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Being the heir or child of someone notable does not mean one automatically piggybacks onto that notability. Separately, the claims of x-factor treatment are not enough to meet WP:BIO. I disagree that this is uncontroversial enough for prod and it certainly isn't a speedy candidate; the claim of notability is evident with sources. That having been said, it is a myth that prodding new articles is fruitless. On the contrary I almost exclusively prod new articles when I use it and am often successful.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:40, 11 March 2007 (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.
