Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Campbell


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Campbell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Only cited claim of notability is an at-one-time "record" (in 2006) of being the "youngest private art gallery owner" in the United States, which would be hard to actually verify. Plastikspork (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What do you mean "hard to verify"? You're getting the reference handed to you on a silver platter. Unless you have good reason to believe it's not accurate, you shouldn't dismiss an offline source, and if you do have good reason, you still need the proof. - Mgm|(talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reference is to "Ladue News Magazine, December 2006", is somewhat vague, considering the publication has 5 issues for December. I am in the process of trying to verify it, since thus far the only hit for "youngest private art gallery owner" is the Wikipedia article.  With or without verification of the claim, it still doesn't seem like there are enough notable accomplishments (in my opinion) to establish notability, as this is the only accomplishment listed. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the way, it is online, if you want to try to find the article and fix the reference: Ladue News 2006 Archive. Finding information in not trivial, as it's scanned page images, but I'm looking. I wouldn't call that a "silver platter". Plastikspork (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have no opinion yet on the disposition of this article, but I would point out that "youngest private art gallery owner" is a pretty meaningless statement. Are we really supposed to believe that anyone keeps track of the ages of all gallery owners? And how do we define a "private art gallery"? What about a talented kid who invites people to his home to look at his paintings? Doesn't that make his room a "private art gallery"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, so that claim to notability is bogus. Why "youngest", not "closest to 30, without going over" like the price is right, or any other piece o' trivia published in some obscure magazine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even assuming the art gallery claim is verifiably true, non-notable. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Single listed achievement (youngest private art gallery owner) is neither verifiable nor really all that notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:25, 2 February 2009 (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.