Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Entinghe
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. The Cosmo piece is a valid source, but the argument that this alone is insufficient to meet the notability guidelines is strong.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] David Entinghe
Does not meet notability standards? AngielaJ 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weakest of Keeps http://www.cosmopolitan.com/hot-guys/bachelors/05bachelors/OHIO_BACHELOR_O5 and while I personally can't stand Cosmo, they meet wp:rs easily. Yes, the other sources are weak but real enough, so it isn't bogus. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I still say delete. It's barely an article and does not signify notability. There are links in the article but those are not reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources like a newspaper article or a magazine that don't focus on his pecs then I can say keep.AngielaJ 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielaj (talk • contribs)
- I agree with your assessment that its barely an article and may not signify notabiltiy but (i hate to say it...) Cosmo does meet wp:rs, and the focus on "pecks" isn't a standard in wp:rs. Lets keep our policies clear and reasons legit. Pharmboy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only a small feature though, not even an article. Also in the guidelines for notability there must be several sources and they must be varied. I'm sorry but a quasi-feature in a fashion magazine doesn't cut it. It needs more sources to cite if you want to prove notability AngielaJ 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment that its barely an article and may not signify notabiltiy but (i hate to say it...) Cosmo does meet wp:rs, and the focus on "pecks" isn't a standard in wp:rs. Lets keep our policies clear and reasons legit. Pharmboy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable non-encyclopedic biography. --Lockley (talk) 22:20, 22 December 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.
