Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakyclown (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   Userfied to User:Colette work/Freaky Clown. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Freakyclown
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article purports to show the notability of the eponymous quasi-anonymous character. It has been developed since its brief inclusion as a two line article and may or may not be similar to a previously AfD deleted article of the same name. I have no access to the source and can therefore not tell what similarities there are, if any. It alleges that the character is a co-author of a book given as a reference, but the sole author listed is a "Dr K" thus the claim cannot, so far, be verified. It also uses non reliable sources for the non book references.

The article appears to act as a promotional vehicle for a Blogspot blog rather than anything else, at least with the revision at the time of this nomination.

The article appears to have been created after these tweets appeared: here and here and the Wikipedia page is used as part of the person's Twitter profile.

That is a long preamble to my suggesting that the article, while it purports to assert notability, really spoofs it sufficiently for an incautious reader to believe true notability, and that the article serves to promote this individual as having its notability verified by appearing in Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is slightly fuller than the version previously deleted at AfD, maybe just enough to escape db-repost, but it does not demonstrate notability. He is claimed to be co-author of two books: in the first case he is not credited, at least under this name, and in the second his name appears among a long list of others. Even if those claims are accepted, they, together with presenting at various conferences and "being the inspiration" for a book character, do not add up to notability, which would require evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I nominated for speedy deletion as a repost but the article was then only a two liner and thus escaped it by being stated, quite reasonably, to be sufficiently different. Based upon the current article your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A case could be made for db-repost, but it would be arguable - now we're here, let this AfD run. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement by a WP:SPA that lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … none of the "references" (like a link to purchase a book on Amazon.com) can be considered WP:RS. Happy Editing! &mdash;  03:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete - Appologies not sure on the correct format for this, and happy for other users to amend if necessary, but I would like ask that that deletion process is suspended. This would allow me time to recreate this page, paying careful attention to the reasons that have been proffered for deletion and hopefully overcome the objections and show that the improved work meets Wikipedia article policies.  I have no personal involvement with the subject, other than attending a keynote presentation at the recent Hack to the Future unconference.  I found his williness to give up his time and present to some 365 primarily kids, and their guardians, interested in becomming the next generation of computer scientists engaging and insightful. User:Colette work 07:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment I see no particular obstacle to userfying this article so that it can, if such a thing is possible, be improved. But it has no place in main namespace at present. I do fear, however, that the vanispamcurftisement aspects are unlikely to be addressable. What reliable sources? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your comments Tim, I agree that it is not suitable in its current form and I am happy for you to userfy this article so that I may flesh it out and also add in approprate ciataions regarding talks held at various conferences, if you do this would other users also be able to edit the article? C~S~W (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone may edit a userfied article, though, by convention, this tends not to happen except by invitation. I suggest this discussion run its course and, should the consensus be to delete, you ask the closing admin to usefy it for you. Alternatively you can grab a copy now in your userspace. Ether or both is generally acceptable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Info. I come to this page, reviewing a photo's license on Commons, and routinely renamed the article title to Freaky Clown. --Dereckson (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy per good faith request by User:Colette work. As is, delete. BusterD (talk) 20:05, 27 February 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.