User:Filll/AGF Challenge Best-Delete the biography


 * 1) The only reliable sources state that the subject is non-notable. A tad paradoxical, I'll admit, but still grounds for exclusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Naerii  02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Well, I would actually send it to AfD as despite the claim of notability, this might be better off deleted as many of the notability claims could be spurious and might be best integrated into other articles. Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) If there is no established notability. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) It sounds like this would end up being, at best, an article that airs the dirty laundry of a person that is of borderline notability in the first place. I'd keep any information relevant to the football scandal on an article about that scandal.  Mango juice talk 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Based on the few, low quality sources we have, the guy seems to be notable only in his own mind and thus doesn't meet the WP:N threshold. -- Levine2112 discuss  18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) AfD (not A7) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) AFD, with the background carefully explained. Neıl  ☎  16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree with MangoJuice. - Dan (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Send to AfD. JMiall  ₰  20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Send to AfD per WP:N. Move information about the football scandal to a page on the scandal, since it likely has notability.DigitalC (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Conveniently this appears to be quite non-notable, making the mess a moot point anyway. In other circumstances I would agree with the votes to write it honest and verifiable, but in this case I think the desire "not to back down on what is right" is misleading many people away from the simpler and more appropriate deletion. We should not be intimidated out of the hard path, but we should not pass up the easy right path just to deliberately (and mistakenly) stand up for the hard path. Alsee (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Doesn't appear to me to meet the notability threshold. His books are self-published but fail the criteria at WP:SELFPUB, the football cheating scandal (as well as the undergraduate theft) seem to fail the  inclusion test, and I see little benefit in including a "bland biography with almost no information". --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I would probably AfD the bio.  The poorly received books on orchids appear not to make a case for notability, and I assume that there is a general article for the football cheating scandal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Essentially agree with the above.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Non-notable.  ProD; if contested, then AfD.  Whoever claims to be him and demanded that a biography be written might not even be him. Bwrs (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) -- Giants27  T  C  20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Not notable, and the sources do nothing to help this. The content wouldn't conform to WP:BLP either. GB 86 06:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) So many contradicting sources, see if consensus says notable in AfD. Allmightyduck &#xF8FF; What did I do wrong? 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)