Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Pruden

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) 2007-02-25 04:41Z

[edit] Doug Pruden

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

Self promotional, self-authored, non-noteable, non-encyclopediac Wtshymanski 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am against of deletion. True, article was started by author himself, but that doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. I am keeping my eye on this article and have deleted some promotional stuff that was there. If you feel that article is still too self-promotional and non-encyclopediac - then, please, fix it. Or leave it for other people to fix. But the article won't be fixed if it will be deleted. And finally about non-noteability. Come on, guy has 9 (nine!) World Records! And it would be interesting to read how the guy decided to make all these records and how he trained. Look at the articles about other athletes - a lot of them have even less information than this article has! mixer 08:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For pushups. "Trivipedia". I suppose this is an appropriate thing to celebrate in an "encyclopedia" that has articles on individual Pokemon characters... --Wtshymanski 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

my, what a sore loser you are. wikipedia doesn't delete the articles you think it ought to, so now you go around voting against every deletion you can to prove a point? grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs)

Not only is nothing cited in his article, but there is far too much editorializing - eg. an "awesome man of faith". Should either be deleted or sources should be added. Evileyetmc 17:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the article and getting rid of the self-promotion and make it balenced. This man is definatly worth a Wikipedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.128.97 (talk • contribs)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, Guinness book is enough to establish notability yet I see problems with WP:V and the whole article sounds as if it goes against WP:COI. In any case citations should be referenced Alf photoman 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Possible to clean up, and the guy holds a bunch of records. Me and my girlfriend enjoyed this entry :P A vegetarian making that many pushups! :P arcade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.81.198 (talk • contribs)
• Keep -- notability established by multiple records and repeated coverage. However, I would suggest completely deleting the "Training" section and most of the "History" section as original research--unless it can somehow be sourced. -- Black Falcon 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO as the recipient of multiple Guiness awards, this should be a no-brainer. (jarbarf) 18:17, 20 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.