Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Stokeling
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. Consensus strongly suggests that this individual is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayne Stokeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was created as part of a "pay for article" business. See here for a rip-off report filed by the unhappy client. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the inrest of fairness, here is the counter-ripoff report. Apparently he has been doing this for quite some time. I'm sure there is a string of articles created by this person. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (blinks) Two hundred dollars? Two hundred dollars? He must have seen his client coming from miles off.
Snow delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some sources, but there's nothing which suggests what he is notable for. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the article writer says "In fact I had to pull a lot of strings to get him written about because he's really not worth being written about." The only significant coverage is an article about him refusing the cooperate with the court after being found in possession of a stolen car and that certainly doesn't confer notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article's talk page indicates that there is plenty written about this person in the New York Amsterdam News but that this is not online. We have sufficient online sources to confirm the basic facts of the matter and should allow time for offline research because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. The issue of payment seems quite irrelevant as the author seems to have acted in good faith. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources might exist" is hardly a reason to keep an article. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very much a reason per our editing policy which is to keep poor articles around so that they can be worked upon and improved incrementally. This is fundamental to the wiki principle and the way we work - grading, reviewing and revising articles so that they slowly rise to good quality. Peremptory deletion is contrary to this policy and is only indicated for hopeless cases, per our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no version of the article that does not have an inherit bias brought on by the pay-for-article schema the author was engaged in. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IMPERFECT is not carthe blanche for retaining unverifiable information. Especially since the author was paid to research and write the article. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no version of the article that does not have an inherit bias brought on by the pay-for-article schema the author was engaged in. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very much a reason per our editing policy which is to keep poor articles around so that they can be worked upon and improved incrementally. This is fundamental to the wiki principle and the way we work - grading, reviewing and revising articles so that they slowly rise to good quality. Peremptory deletion is contrary to this policy and is only indicated for hopeless cases, per our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources might exist" is hardly a reason to keep an article. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The pay-to-play element is a violation of WP:N that to me implies that we should by default delete this unless strong reason can be found to keep it, rather than the opposite, and I'm just not seeing that strong reason. The only nontrivial and independent coverage in the sources listed is in the "Culture Mob" link, and I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Most of the sources aren't even about the subject at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (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.