Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Clatworthy


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ben Clatworthy

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

Prod contested with no reason given by an IP editor.
 * also nominating News 140
 * Two articles on a sixteen schoolboy and the internet news channel he has set up. Unfortunately, and despite claims in the articles, there is a distinct absence of coverage in the news or any other reliable source of either subject. Hence, failing WP:BIO and WP:ORG (or any others available) Nuttah (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The age of the kid is not relevant to the debate. Lacking sources is deleteable for articles about people of any age. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of both articles felt it is relevant to include references to the age and educational status of the subject, so I included this in my summary of them. At no point was this information given as a deletion criteria, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that incorrect assumption. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I arrived at that conclusion because you mentioned it. Age is frequently used as a reason to "prove" someone hasn't yet lived long enough to establish anything. Your clarification is appreciated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all of the references are written by the subject, not about the subject. I failed to find any other sources about him. He has not received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Fails WP:BIO. Delete News 140] also. Lack of reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both per Atmoz's reasoning - the article does a good job of making his achievements sound impressive, but it's all very minor and obscure appearances, with no coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca  t 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.