Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Keith

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shannon Keith

Ok, so there is this page Shannon Keith about the man woman, and this page Uncaged Films about his her company and this page Behind the Mask (ALF) about their movie. The three pages are somehow very interconnected - I don't think there is basis for an article about the man woman alone. Medico80 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment... and now he boldly removed this AfD. Medico80 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is extremely premature. The stub was created at 14:13 and it was nominated for deletion at 14:24. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You could try reading things before you nominate them. It's about a woman, not a man. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My bad, but it doesn't change my point. It took me two seconds to realize this is vanity/spam whatever gender the person is. And the fact that the AfD tag was removed should be enough to delete the page. Medico80 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with it? I removed that inadvertently during an edit conflict. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely delete Uncaged Films (I'm unsure about the others) Googling "Uncaged Films" gets 74 total and 21 unique Google hits, and said company, apparently, did not even produce/release the film mentioned above. Thus, I can't imagine how it retains any notability whatsoever. -- Kicking222 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/nn bio Wildthing61476 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as vanity, nn, self-referential. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please notice that I have only nominated Shannon Keith. But Behind the Mask (ALF) surely doesn't look good either: external refs are: The company itself, a YouTube clip, two ALF sites, and a MySpace site. Medico80 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO as Not Notable, unless some verifable sources can be cited demonstrating she has "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of" her. The external links currently cited make this look like a vanity page. If the author(s) can better establish notability, I might change my position. Also, as a Comment: we should all try to take greater care in our AfD nominations and work harder to get basic facts right before presenting a nomination. We all want Wikipedia to be the best, objective, factual encyclopedia it can be. We should all strive to thoroughly read each article before making AfD nominations. Thanks! Scorpiondollprincess 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps even wait more than nine minutes before nominating a stub. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, please cite independent sources to establish notability, especially the claim about the 2000 settlement.  Cdcon  18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominating an article for deletion 9 minutes after it is created just doesn't sit well with me. Give the original author and the rest of the community a chance to expand this and revisit the issue later -- I already see that several sources have been added to the page. RFerreira 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Not much of independent sources so far - mostly subject's own sites or communites that we can't determine magnitude and importance of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.25.152 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable activist. Catchpole 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per SlimVirgin --Mitaphane talk 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Deletion nomination has no explicit reason why this article meets criteria for deletion; we don't delete article just because we think there's no basis behind the article. --Mitaphane talk 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't nominate it out of a gut feeling - it fails WP:BIO. For a political activist Google search is a reasonable tool to measure notability. The links that were added after nomination are rather self-reflecting - don't prove fame outside the subject's own community. Medico80 11:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, I understood; I was being a stickler for rules. I was making a point that a AfD nom should explicitly say why it violates criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia. --Mitaphane talk 15:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Point taken. Medico80 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mitaphane and SlimVirgin, not entirely convinced that this fails WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 100% agree with Yamaguchi先生 as stated above. FK0071a 18:25, 17 August 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.