Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher A. Herring


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. This is a pretty clearcut non notable bio, and a selfwritten one to boot. -- + +Lar: t/c 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Christopher A. Herring
Pure-vanity bio (from User:Christopher A. Herring -- note that his user page originally was a redirect to this article) of some mid-level publishing exec. Gets 304 total Google hits for "Christopher Herring" -- many of them not him -- and six (6) Google hits for "Christopher A. Herring" -- NONE for him. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment, ''Removed dated prod tag because wikipedian editor Calton was rude, calling me "some mid-level publishing exec." Information is verifiable in print: see masthead in physical copy of Forbes magazine'' -- though how someone who works in New York publishing would set such a low benchmark for rudeness, I don't know. Calton | Talk 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Politely delete per WP:BIO, as the person does not appear to meet any of the guidelines and tests there, and his position does not seem equevilant to any of the examples given at this notability guideline. Also, I don't know how far into detail the print masthead for Forbes magazine goes, but on the online masthead, I am having great difficulty finding his title or equevilant position (Note: I am looking for his position here, not him). Maybe they abolished his post after he left, but even so, the sum total of the verifiable information (assuming an equal level of detail between the online and print mastheads) is that a person by the name of Christopher Herring *worked in that position, in NO way enough for even a stub unless fleshed out by original research which is a definite no-no or 'vanity' work which is highly inadvised. -- saberwyn 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. David L Rattigan 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The online masthead for Forbes.com does not include people who work for the parent company, Forbes Inc. You'll notice that Steve Forbes is not even on the online masthead, but controls the entire Forbes enterprise...   I do not think my work is vanity work, and in the magazine publishing space, I am well known.  Please provide guidance on how I can specifically alter this entry and I'd more than happy to do so.  --Christopher A. Herring 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to prove the facts presented through a third-party, externally verifiable source (in other words somehting written by someone else published. For every aspect of the article, we must be able to confirm it wothout having to go and physically ask you or one of your close colleagues. That would be a start. -- saberwyn 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as failure of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, article does not establish notability NawlinWiki 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, since "many Wikipedians oppose the use of [the] WP:BIO guideline," myself included. As the WP:BIO guidleing states, I encourage you to provide "a personal and specific message about your concerns about the article, on the article's talk page."  --Christopher A. Herring 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang on - you just argued that it shouldn't be deleted because you and others oppose the BIO policy, and then you argue that we should discuss this on your talkpage - as per the BIO policy... In any case, I think the main point of contention is that this is a vanity article. David L Rattigan 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see any verifiable evidence. All seems to be original research on a subject who isn't particularly notable in the first place.  Strange that someone who is inclined to write articles about himself opposes WP:BIO... hmmmm...  Wickethewok 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO, unverifiable, vanity. --Ter e nce Ong 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, waste of storage. --Charlesknight 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of WP:VANITY. Also, so-named author has been considered rude against other Wikipedians, AFAIK. --Slgrandson 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete while I would be open to a loosening of WP:BIO I don't see any assertion of notability here, in addition to the violation og WP:VANITY. Eluchil404 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if you must, but I don't see why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. As for Charlesknight, are we really concerned about storage space in the year 2006?  Christopher A. Herring 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * why WP:BIO can't be loosened so that people can place bios of themselves in the world's greatest encylcopedia. In a word, "quality control" (okay, that's two words). If this is, indeed, going to be "the world's greatest encyclopedia", it'll be that way by not being mistaken for the Yellow Pages or the university alumni newsletter. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 12 June 2006 (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.