Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Pennington

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 - I ignored the socks of course.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Pennington

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Nonnotable person. Prod tag removed. Created by User:Rpennington, so I think it should be userfied and then deleted. NawlinWiki 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Entry is noteworthy, not unduly aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources. Should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.99.26 (talk • contribs) , who blanked the listing to add this comment. NawlinWiki 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete looks more like a resume than an article. Sanbeg 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete as non-notable, though I found his company's press release. --Huon 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is a notable figure in Washington State government and politics. Article is totally factual and not promotional. Do not delete.--Renee-nay 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Completely factual and unbiased article. Noteworthy contributor to regional public policy.--Smidgetdz 23:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. Prominent in 2004 elections in WA. Found some corroborating materials hereand here.--Pilchuckpenguin 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Note Each of the above three comments is the user's only WP edit. None of them explain *why* the person is notable, they just assert it. NawlinWiki 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN and check for possible sockpuppetry. --DarkAudit 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN-bio; vanity. --Madchester 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn per nom. Wow. PR director for a PR firm and this is the best he can do. (Does he really think the multiple new user ID's fool anybody?) Remind me not to hire these people. Fan-1967 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:BIO. --Satori Son 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. Subject is notable for work and received press coverage for such. Article is not biased.--Bigboy49 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note User has only 2 edits. Only other one was 7 minutes prior to this, and change was a single letter. --DarkAudit 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Alleged press coverage is not about Ryan Pennington qua Ryan Pennington; the KUOW link directly above does not discuss him at all: he appears nominally as an incidental demonstrator. Also, I find it quite incredible that a number of users felt so passionately about this article they were moved to create accounts just to chime in. Smells like socks to me, too. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. Dissenters have said nothing that discredits anything in the article and the multiple independent and verifiable sources clearly corroborate the information and demonstrate the encyclopedic value of the subject.--67.168.153.253 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note User's only edit. --DarkAudit 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete. The evidence presented here demonstrates that this is a notable regional individual and the artcile in question clearly addresses the subject in an unbiased manner.--Downtown005 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Above user has only 2 edits. Only other one was 3 minutes prior to this, and change was a single letter. --Satori Son 23:28, 17 July 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.