Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McNamara (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 delete. --Core desat 21:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

David McNamara


Bumping from speedy (G11 and A7). My initial reaction is this person is not notable enough to warrant the permanent privacy violation created by the encyclopedia entry. Apparently he wrote an ill-advised or spoof blog entry and was then made fun of by Fark. There was a previous AFD: Articles for deletion/David McNamara. User:Dcmcnamara, apparently the subject, is now a Wikipedia user and objects to this article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 02:55Z 
 * Comment the AFD template on the page does not link to any discussion and is a red link. I don't think this was done properly. --70.48.172.144 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixing it. -Amarkov blahedits 05:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-13 09:04Z 


 * Delete Whether he likes havign an article on himself is not relevant. What is relevant is, does he meet WP:BIO and/or his blog meet WP:WEB? A google search and examination of the entries given in the article don't seem to indicate that. If someone else can find any evidence otherwise then I'll change to keep. JoshuaZ 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, in my opinion. Some of information is just completely unencyclopedic, regardless of the notability of the article. Coups to take over the "Archduchy of Pedronia in the Kingdom of Gotzburg"? Very questionable. –-  kungming·  2  | (Talk ·Contact) 07:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notab=ple as per WP:BIO, don't think an internet flame war and '15 minutes of shame fame' meets criteria.SkierRMH 09:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  I am the person who proposed the deletion due to the fact that I have moved on from that time. I was young and stupid at the time and my hormones probably had something to do with it as well. Additionally, I don't think I have the prerequisite fame for such an entry. Lastly, a lot of the data attributed to me was put by imposters and until I was informed of them via this very site, I had no idea they even existed! David McNamara 10:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Not enough independent sources, and so what if his blog is famous, not notable enough. --Ter e nce Ong (C 13:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Black-Velvet  14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete falls short of WP:BIO standards. The blog as well does not seem main stream enough yet either.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads as either an attack page or a rambling vanity page.  Spinach Dip 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. -- Another thing. Since some people might decide to recreate the page, could it (along with the redirector Anti-Porn Guy) be protected from re-creation and the entry(-ies) permanently deleted from the server? David McNamara 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming the David McNamara article is deleted, all redirects to it will be deleted. Protecting from recreation is generally only done in response to long-term vandalism, not pre-emptively. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-14 04:22Z 
 * Delete. Non-notable kook. Nothing wrong with being a kook, or having kooks in Wikipedia, but he didn't receive any real MSM attention/notoriety. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, Anti-Porn guy? I knew I recognized this name - strong keep, i'm pretty sure this would meet WP:WEB anyway, but I'll try to dig up sources, but this was a pretty big deal before he got exposed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 15 November 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.