Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sollog (3rd nomination)

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. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog

Sollog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article on this self-styled Nostradamus has persisted since 2004, largely the consequence of a migrating notability policy that, until recently, conflated any reference in the media with notability. The discussion last time around was close (probably should have been deleted), but some editors still were being swayed by the ridiculously unimportant media "references" adduced, despite there being no indication that the individual meets the standard elucidated at WP:BIO. Self-published Sollog may believe that he is "THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY", but he doesn't belong here. This is an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons as last time: claims to notability are posting on usenet, writing self-published books, and getting arrested for not-exactly-the-crime-of-the-century stuff like DUI. That's just not enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known net kook personality. Corvus cornix 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are sufficient sources in line with WP:BIO to support this article, surprisingly. Burntsauce 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. i ^said 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable crackhead. Good resource for someone wondering why this guy is all over Usenet. A2Kafir 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think there are RSs. The (relatively minor) criminal activity is all sourced to one alternative newspaper, which is known to have been carrying on a feud with him, and by BLP standards should be removed--if its real, there will be confirmatory sources; in any case, it is not relevant enough to his career to include, again per BLP. The use of a mugshot as the illustration for someone not primarily a criminal is yet another prejudicial use. The NYT/Petersurg Times story does not mention him. The Wash. Post story mentions him among others, in the middle, not the lede, & is not primarily about him. Ditto with the Guardian. So where are the RSs. Arguably G10, attack page. Not that he doesnt deserve it, but that's not our job. DGG (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete concur with DGG that there is not suffcient reliable sources in which he is the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq 17:04, 20 September 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.