Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Wickersham

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. Sr13 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Wickersham

I tagged this for proposed deletion on 17th, on the grounds that it's an unsourced orphan living bio. On 22nd an admin browsing the category of ripe prods decided to remove the tag because "There is some claim to notability in the article (writing for ESPN. The Magazine)". Well obvious, I didn't tag it for speedy, but anyway here we are. My proposal is that we either spend the next five days sourcing this article, or delete it. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a stub, with this source [1]. He not only writes for ESPN, but has written for The Sporting News and was an intern at the Washington Post.--Sethacus 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)(formerly Ispy1981)
  • Delete not notable per nominator. He appears to be "just a journalist", and the who he writes for does not amount to much of a notability claim. You would expect to see his name of by-lines, but I do not believe it fulfills WP:BIO. If you remove espn.go.com, he scores 123 unique GHits Ohconfucius 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Ohconfucius 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no apparent notability as a journalist. I don't think it's close, but note also apparent WP:COI in article creation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Indeed, "sethacus"! possible sockpuppet voting above?? Ohconfucius 12:17, 23 July 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.