Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Parzen


 * 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 Keep. Even if it was originally an autobiography, that doesn't necessarily make it deletion worthy. Since nomination, this article now has a neutral POV, and is within Wikipedia guidelines so consensus proves this one is a keeper. Tavix | Talk  22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Parzen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Parzen wrote this article about himself, in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. He then went around the project inserting links to his article in a variety of other articles. When he was confronted with his behavior, he did apologize, and requested that the article be deleted. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I told Parzen I'd support retaining this article, and asked him not to delete it. He wrote the article on himself without realizing it was contrary to our guidelines. He did so in a thoroughly neutral tone. I believe the article and refs meet our criteria for notability, for his writing work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He is a blogger and translator whose work fails the notability standards of WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He is a respected and widely published food and wine writer who meets WP:AUTHOR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Parzen looks like he is wiki notable to me and the page can and will be improved, Parzen has been quite open about who he is and imo has done nothing wrong, I think in a heated moment he asked how to delete the article but I have discussed with him and he is for keeping and improving the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see how it goes here. If it's clear consensus is against keeping he may change his mind, in which case we can db-author it at any time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Technically it would not qualify for db-author as he is not the sole contributor to the article.
 * True. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep it seems notable, i see no reason to delete it Aisha9152 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: scrapes by per WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

The subject seems to meet wikipedia notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG with this and this, he's WP:N. J04n(talk page) 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, although this AfD has been relisted, you cannot vote twice. Please strike through the above vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutrally written on notable person. -- WP:COI is not a fatal flaw for initiating an article. "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion."    Abent a reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 12:16, 16 November 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.