Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cole


 * 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) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Cole

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to be a vanity page. Well written, but apparently by the subject (see history). Most cites are to subject's own work and all are from local Colorado newspapers. Mgcsinc (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was researching an AfD nomination of my own for this but was forestalled by Mgcsinc's nom. All of the references in the article are to the texts of pieces Cole has written as a "guest columnist" for a local Colorado Springs newspaper, to articles (mostly in the same newspaper) in which he is merely quoted, or to articles in which he is not mentioned at all (numbers 20, 21, and 22, at least). I can find absolutely no evidence of the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:BIO requires. In particular, the subject fails every criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Deor (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, and the true reason for the article is apparently to stuff a big ol' clump of external links to his own guest columns in his local newspaper. No thanks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement unsupported by any WP:RS coverage. Happy Editing! &mdash;  21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (from nominator): Is this A7 speedy-deletable? I don't have a good concept because I'm fairly inexperienced with these things, but I don't think the article actually makes a credible notability claim. Just curious. - Mgcsinc (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - my own opinion is that the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion fairly narrow and strict on the criteria.  Something with this many references, regardless of the reference quality would be best served through AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any sourcing that would establish this person as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (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.