Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dignan

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 - I think the concensus indicates your "delete with no objection to a later re-creation if [you] become more well-known" is probably right. There is question of original research too - hardly any of the article can be verified from the external links. Yomanganitalk 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Dignan

Oookay... this is a really tricky one. I am James Dignan, and though I have no objection to having an article on WP, I really don't think I'm quite notable enough for one. I had this as a subpage of my user-page, as much as anything as an "example article" (and it is still there), but someone noticed that several articles had my name as a redlink and decided to copy it over to article space.

Trying to look at it objectively, there are several claims of notability here, and I certainly get loads of google hits and - as I mentioned - there are about ten links from other articles to this page. But there are also some significantly trivial aspects to a lot of the article. But I don't know... the best solution I could come up with was to lay it all out in an afd and see what the consensus is. My gut feeling is either "trim thoroughly" or "delete with no objection to a later re-creation if I become more well-known", and keeping the "userfied" version as is. Consider this more a procedural no vote than as a yay or nay. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, seems sufficiently notable, although at the lower end of the scale. Doesn't need much trimming, in my opinion.-gadfium 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article shows that he has done enough to warrant an article if verified. EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database does verify some of the material in the article. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It does? Wow... I can probably provide some independently published verification for several of the things mentioned if needed. Certainly there should be enough web sources to verify the radio station and Otago Daily Times information. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Should stay in user space for now. Sorry, but I don't see any solid claims to encyclopedic notability here. Clearly a valuable part of the New Zealand cultural scene, but nothing so far merits encyclopedic inclusion on the basis of this article. When the book that's being written is published and is proclaimed by reliable sources to be significant, the case will be stronger. I applaud the modesty of the nominator - in contrast, there are many artists/perfomers/writers around his level who are unabashed about writing up their own articles for Wikipedia Bwithh 03:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakish keep (i.e. stronger than weak but weaker than regular) This is a case where I'm not sure that any individual achievement listed in the article would necessarily confer sufficient notability, but I feel that everything stacked together does assert enough significance so as to warrant an article. -- Kicking222 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sorry. I go over the various items in article and at each stage I can think of people I know who would have similar levels of claims to fame but wouldn't justify an article either. Spread a little too thin perhaps. - SimonLyall 09:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As I don't see evidence of meeting the WP:BIO standard from multiple coverage by independent sources. GRBerry 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, they could easily be found. At least two of the four external links qualify as independent sources. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All-around cool guy and should therefore be added to the Pantheon of Cool Wikipedians, but it seems the redlinks were mostly about your flag design work, and I would say the threshold for notability is simply having a design accepted as an official flag. It doesn't look like this has happened yet, but I wish you luck. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 15 November 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.