Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lassman


 * 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   redirect to Rejecting Jane. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

David Lassman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

We already have an article for the hoax which he perpetrated. There are a few citations, but I don't think that the other things he has done are noteworthy enough NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - there are 18 citations; the question, clearly, is what do they show. If they relate only to the Rejecting Jane hoax then a merge is in order, not a matter for AfD, just consensus on the two pages affected. If they show he's notable, then no action is required. Either way it doesn't seem a matter to bring here.


 * By the way, if you do mean to bring this to AfD, someone needs to mark the article itself as being under this threat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice -- I have added the template now. I don't think there is any content in the Lassman article worth merging into the 'Rejecting Jane' one. The 'Rejecting Jane' section in the Lassman article simple reproduces the content in the 'Rejecting Jane' article. As for the 'Crazy About Jane' section -- I don't think the fact that a few quotes by the subject were reproduced in a number of ephemeral newspaper articles is worth a Wikipedia entry. Hence why I think this article should just be deleted outright. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect OK well then delete, notability not established. But perhaps a Redirect would be more helpful to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Perfectly reasonable search term for the article on the hoax.  DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (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.