Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schlund (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanity. Previous nom should have passed as a deletion. A sympton of WP:1E. Also sufferes from COI, as subject of article is main contributor. Thus, reads like an advertisement, and is WP:SPAM. I redirected this to Jet pack but anon user keep undoing the edit. It is currently a redirect, but I suspect this will not last. Last version of the article is here smooth0707  (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) *Keep: It may be more of a living biography. Possibly changing it to a biography templet will help. Either way, it has merit and notability. Please login to vote. smooth0707 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: all sources I could find on the subject are from his own personal website, or cached wiki servers. No reliable third party sources. smooth0707  (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are about 20 news hits discussing this person to some extent, including a few with multi-paragraph coverage or that make significant claims, and one in Spanish (albeit a very short one) that focuses on him exclusively. I'd say that's enough to establish notability, and to keep. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Smooth0707, it's not requisite to log in to vote (though the rules note that anon votes may be given less weight). Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but users (like anon above), with a vested interest in the article, (like anon above), should disclose such interest. smooth0707  (talk)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Though it's close in my mind. There is a dearth of significant independent articles about him, beyond just referring to him doing a public event. It certainly feels like a vanity piece, and he does seem to be a one event guy at this point. --Ged UK (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am in favour of keeping for all the same reasons as stated by Gonzonoir. Even if it is a vanity piece, is should still stay if subject is notable. (PS- is the blanking of the page [now reverted] vandalism?) Esasus (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't blanked...it was a redirect, so no. smooth0707  (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 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.