Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Spence (2nd nomination)

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. John254 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Spence

The subject of this page is not notable. The page looks like it started as an ad for his book. Look at the original post, it's just an ad for the book, with a link to Amazon right there at the beginning. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise. This page does not appear to have any other purpose than promotion of Chris Spence and his book.--James52 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Clearly notable, but the article reads like an advert, which needs to be taken care of. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Rjd. Written like an ad, but I think we should keep it and take care of that instead of simply deleting it. jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is still clearly notable. The article still clearly needs to be cleaned up. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I mean, really?? Look at it. It's a vanity page, stroking an ego. I can't see that it is suitable for an encyclopedia at all. /scratch --James52 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Just because the article is a vanity page doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. And if the subject is notable (which seems to be the case), then the page is more than welcome to stay, so that others can clean it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be in the eye of the beholder. And I just don't see it. /shrug--James52 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rjd. Maxa megalon 2000 06:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick internet search will show the subject is clearly notable for more than just the book. The link to Amazon.com was added by one of your reviewers who insisted to have it in there so its a pathetic comment to state that this article was written as an advertisment for the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my! A snippy, unsigned comment by the creator of the page. Whatever shall I do? How droll. Even pathetic, perhaps? I mean, really, MY reviewers? Like I have a vested interest?--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, how did that comment make you feel? Cooperative? Receptive? Rational? If you really want to Win Friends and Influence People you might start by keeping a civil tongue.--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subject of the debate, I saw the page and was immediately struck that it "wasn't right". And I'm evidently not the only one, or even the first. This HAS been nominated for deletion before you know, which I discovered as I was following the process. (Not to mention the attempt at speedy deletion, this then is the 3rd attempt. Also not to mention that a person claiming to be the subject of the article has expressed support for it's deletion. Perhaps there is something to this after all?) Knowing human nature I figured a 'second' nomination had absolutely no chance of passing, but I did my little bit to attempt to rid Wiki of one more little piece of junk. If a rewrite is what it needs, anyone is welcome, but the subject simply does not interest me enough to attract me to do the work. Cheers.--James52 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This much travelled writer on global warming has attracted some interest as is shown by the numerous internet references to him which can be found through a search on google. Re-writing once again all the bits that were found is a waste of time. It has already been done. I am sure the subject of this article would not like to have himself referred to as 'one more little piece of junk'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referred to as one more little piece of junk, not the subject of the article. I can get myself into quite enough trouble without help, thanks. Hehe.--James52 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BOLD. I've removed everything that read like an advert, though there's not a whole lot left. I broke the body into a shortened bio section and a career section. The career section, I focused on Spence's writings. The book is the main hook for notability, but the articles and various non-notable mentions elsewhere were removed. I kept the three articles he seems to have written, and distilled them as a list of other writings. I did not think anything else could be kept, as it mostly sounded like a soapbox speech. I also removed external links that duplicated references or were geocities, and I added a stub tag. With the advertising removed, I have no reservations about keeping the article. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. This is getting a bit ridiculous. 90% of the article has now been removed including factual , verifiable statements. The article is removed to a few sentences, some with two footnotes a sentence. Either the chap is notable and worth writing about or not, but reducing the article to almost a stub with only a few sentences is clearly not the way to go. (JB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.