Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Maier


 * 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   keep. There is a rough consensus to keep this article, so I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Maier

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recently speedily deleted then restored in an almost identical form. Lacks any indication of significant coverage in any of the included sources, none of which are inline citations so effectively also a BLP unsourced article. Fails notability at wp:creative. Appears to be a vanity article cited as the subject's Twitter biography, created, maintained and restored by a single contributor. Exok (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I created this article, and I'm not Daniel Maier, as you seem to be implying.

As I pointed out when I reposted the article, it meets the wp:creative notability criteria in that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work (namely Harry Hill's TV Burp, one of the most-watched television programmes in the UK that is long running and has been awarded many significant prizes). It is also not "effectively" a BLP unsourced article: it has seven external sources including from major websites like BBC and The Guardian. How is that considered unsourced, can you please explain?

With regards to "lacks indication of significant coverage" when he's mentioned in the standfirst of a Guardian news story ahead of three well-known actors - an article that was retweeted dozens of times and shared on Facebook hundreds of times in a a newspaper that has three million visitors a month online - I don't see how that can be considered insignificant coverage - can you please explain? Furthermore, the original Wikipedia entry was created well before the subject's Twitter profile, so to use that as proof that it's a vanity article is a nonsense.

I've not had to deal with article deletion before, so I'm sorry if I'm not following all the correct procedures here, but I think this is very harsh. This is a well sourced article that falls within Wikipedia guidelines and makes a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia site.

Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, high degree of WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not seeing much in the way of overt promotion, other than inclusion of a link for his agent, which could easily be removed via the normal editorial process. Maier's take on Francis Galton gets some play HERE, passing mention HERE. Not a lot of ammo in an AfD defense, but it seems there is some likelihood that this is a comedy writer for whom reliable sources may well exist. Under no circumstances should this be snowed or speedied away, let's have a week to see if a couple biographical sorts of pieces materialize. Note to article creator: you are going to need to find a couple independently published sources dealing in large measure with Dan Maier as their subject. As the article stands it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Dig hard. If you have any questions about what is going on here, feel free to contact me for an explanation, either by my Wikipedia talk page or directly at MutantPop@aol.com. best, —Tim Davenport ////// Carrite (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Can I vote in this? I've addressed concerns raised and no one else is voting, so I thought I might as well. Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral leaning towards keep - I removed the offending links from the page a few days ago (and promptly forgot about the AFD)... Well, the inline citations prove the subject is who he's stated to be. I think a "keep" is borderline-reasonable given the referencing. Re: the nomination statement - the fact the citations were not inline at the time is not a reason for deletion (see WP:SOFIXIT and I've yet to see evidence this is a vanity article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:30, 14 October 2011 (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.