Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve oakey

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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve oakey

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Atrian as nn-bio, but article claims the subject is a skateboarder who has appeared in skateboarding movies. However, IMDB has never heard of him or the movies. howcheng {chat} 08:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete apparent hoax/vanity whose claims of notability seem quite false. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:17, Jan. 12, 2006
• Delete I wish there weren't so many articles that would be speedyable as A7, except they make bollocks claims of notability.... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A few hits for "Steve oakey" skateboarder so probably not a hoax, but they seem more like random comments. No bio or anything verifyable -- Astrokey44|talk 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. (Stumbled across this nomination while trying to wikify Frank and teds greatest hits, which was contributed by the same editor.) Admittedly, many of the details in this article fail the verification test. However, what troubles me about deleting this article is that (1) we have no criteria for determining how to verify that a skateborder exists, let alone to prove he/she a celebrity even within this subculture, & (2) doing a Google search shows a lot of dead links about him -- which suggests that Internet sources are not a reliable way to verify facts about skateborders. I'd feel more comfortable about deleting this article if a search thru the relevant magazines on this article had also been done. (The websites for the few skateboard mags I found all had suboptimal search features, so even if Oakley was the subject of a featured profile this would be hard to determine short of reading the table of contents for every issue.) -- llywrch 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable per Ilywrch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 06:01Z

Er, I said keep, not delete. Do you want to select another opinion to agree with? -- llywrch 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a sloppy comment by me. What I mean is, I don't see any evidence that the subject is notable; and from your research, the subject appears unverifiable. Yes it sucks to rely on the Internet for "verifying" information, but that's all we got until someone actually digs up those magazines. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 23:22Z

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.