Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Haeseker


 * 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   no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Haeseker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article fail to establish notability for the subject as they are written by the subject. Further, I can find no third party reliable sources that establish notability.  Pinkadelica ♣  23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep We have normally regarded being included in an anthology as a major factor in notability for a writer.This single one seems   adequate  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "We have normally regarded...". Yikes! Turn off the Kagan hearings.  Wikipedia is not a court, we don't do precedents, and thank God for that because judges notoriously pick whatever precedents suit their desired end.  Forget anthologies; how's this for a precedent?  160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * inconsistency is not a virtue, but a sign of immaturity. We don't follow precedents in the exact sense the anglo-american legal system does; we do establish our practices through custom as well as formal rule-making. What we consistently do amounts to a guideline. Needless to dsay, we can change it if we chave agreement to do so, as with any guideline or policy. Inclusion in an anthology is essentially the rough equivalent of the more formal WP:CREATIVE  guidelines that are worded to apply to visual artists: b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition,  (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.   DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 July 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.