Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Slemen

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-23 08:45Z

[edit] Tom Slemen

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

Non-notable Jumpinmycar 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep notable; dozens of books published, all with ISBN. A quick ghit lookup, and look at Amazon and Banres and Noble, and ISBNdb shows multiple verifiable sources as Author. Other encyclopedias have him, other wikipedia articles mention him. Jerry lavoie 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ^He's right, you know. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The man has published 25 books to date. 25! -- Black Falcon 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per consensus -- possibly a bad-faith nomination (user's only edits were this nom, which completed the nom of an anon user all of whose previous edits were vandalism.) --N Shar 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Published is not the criterion -- discussed by reliable sources is. The article has only one source, and that primary. Delete unless sources are provided. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. This seems to have been a bad faith nomination. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:BIO and seems to be a bad faith nom. --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 07:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. I REALLY wish nominators would give us more than "NN" though!! Jcuk 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article pasess WP:BIO, however I do think the picture could be replaced by a more formal one.TellyaddictEditor review! 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If the case is so clear, it should be posssible to stop bashing the nominator and actually come up with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person as required by WP:BIO either here on in the equally unsourced Haunted Liverpool --Tikiwont 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep loads of published books, and regular media appearances. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, name doesn't ring a bell to me. Home run derriby 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, at least keep it for the time being to allow editors to find and add some other sources. Author is notable worldwide, having published books in the USA also.--NeilEvans 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The only other edit by the nominator is a vandalism on the article "anus" --which I have just reverted.DGG 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, he just sees dead people. DGG, my edit on 'anus' was just to point out that the word 'arsehole' is a suitable synonym. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumpinmycar (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Setting aside for the moment that this is a bad faith nomination, the subject is notable per the multitude of published books and frequent media appearances. (jarbarf) 00:56, 22 February 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.