Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Stahler


 * 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 is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline due to not having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Stahler

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible hoax. A google search found several "Alan Stahler", but none appeared to be this person. Contested prod -- article creator removed the prod tag without comment and added brand-new blogs as "sources" for the article -- all with the exact same content. -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC) There's no need to delete the article. What I've written there about the person is an informative account of his life. This article can serve as a valuable piece of information for some people. It does contain real true facts and statements. I would strongly suggest to not delete the article.Jeremykatz (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Only refs provided are to blogs fails WP:N and the blogs are hardly WP:RS-- BigDunc (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparent attempt at astroturfing. Blogs are nearly always rejected as reliable sources. These blogs, which the creators apparently didn't even bother to go beyond the defaults, are even more unreliable than that. DarkAudit (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources you have provided are unacceptable. See WP:RS to see what is expected of Wikipedia articles. You say these statements are true, but you provide no verifiable proof. Your word does not count as a reliable, verifiable, and independent source. DarkAudit (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per G12 as copyvio of http://lifelogger.com/m/lifelog/ianlocksly/674431 DarkAudit (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The blog entry was created on March 15. The article was created three days earlier on March 12, so it can't be a copyvio. 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All the blog entries cited as references were created after this article, which makes then even more worthless as references than they already were. DarkAudit (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes you are right all blog entries used in this were made after the article was created so of absolutly no use as refs. BigDunc (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced, per nom. and BigDunc. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Should have been speedied. Deb (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NO DELETE - I've seen many wikipedia articles that had no references at all. And yet they deserved being the articles. Why should my article be an exception? If the dates of the blogs' creation really bother you I could just create a new wikipedia account and then refer to the websites. Would that fit the bill? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremykatz (talk • contribs)
 * No, that would be fraud, sockpuppetry, and numerous other sins that would not only get the article deleted, it would get you blocked. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. You haven't even told us what this guy does for a living. what's provided is so vague, it's not proof that the man even exists. DarkAudit (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added his place of work. This guy really does exist, believe me. Why would I want to publish an article about someone who doesn't even exist?! By the way, WP:DOSPAGWYA Jeremykatz (talk)
 * Anyways, don't get me wrong. I don't want to conflict with your policies. And of course "sockpuppetry" is a very hard-driving term for my article. I'm not going to harass here anyone I just want my article published, that's all.


 * 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.