Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Ling

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Ling

Vanity for Mr. Ling. His work with Naschy and the Grandmother Martha project can be (and mostly has been) merged with those respective articles. Holding an out-of-date couple of Guinness entries is not a free pass to notability, nor is trying to pass oneself off as a member of the Holy Roman Empire. For your examination, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-04-27, searching for "Sydney Ling" and, as further evidence, don't take my word for it - see The official Sydney Ling site. Still convinced of notability? Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Seems somewhat notable. --Ezeu 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Main reasons to keep are borderline notability in low-budget movies, and to debunk the hype. Tearlach 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. RobLinwood 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Per Ezeu. QuizQuick 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems marginally notable. Tachyon01 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete as NN. Marginal notability is not a keeper. Tychocat 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We're not running out of space and he is somewhat notable. Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Home produced movies are about as notable as vanity published books. -- GWO
• Delete, not notable per GWO. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per GWO. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Gotta love the link to the official Sydney Ling site. in the nomination (not the article itself), but that little laugh notwithstanding, the article does suggest sufficient notability for mine. Colonel Tom 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sure, there's a little notability, but definitely not enough. -- Kicking222 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. Jmsloderbeck 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete not quite notable enough for me. —Mets501^talk 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Home movies does not meet WP:BIO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Guiness Book of World Records is not an indicator of notability. Part of the appeal of the book is that most of the people in it are entirely obscure. If he had the world record for something more notable we cold talk, but making a long documentary of his grandmother doesn't really qualify. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, as said --SeanMcG 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, as said --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough Bwithh 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems to be sort of notable Chipka 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per savidan Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please there is some notability and wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 16:31, 8 June 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.