Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Mann


 * 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   Snow keep per WP:SNOW. There is not even a hint of defamation here. This Keith Mann, who is explicitly the subject of the article, easily passes WP:GNG. No substantive policy has been raised to require deletion. "Keith Mann" is an extremely common name, and, in fact, I have a neighor and former constituent with the same name. There is nothing we can do about Keith S. Mann's problems, sorry. Also, I think he means cite, not site. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith Mann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am listing this page on behalf of Keith.s.mann (OTRS Ticket # 2013121610012062). He states, "This site is clearly an attempt at a truant to strike fame. Furthermore I site “defamation of a common name” as this is also my birth name and I will not stand to have my name go down in history as one belonging to that of a vandalous criminal.  I am a professional, as are others with whom I know hold this name and it disgusts me to bear witness of this defamation." Mike V •  Talk  18:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - personal offense at somebody's name is not a reason to delete a valid article. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if Keith.s.mann Finds it to a attempt at a truant to strike fame. I don't see the rationale of deleting a Valid article.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: he meets the notability guidelines, and there isn't much we can do to help if the nominator has the same name. Mat  ty  .  007  19:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could suggest that Keith.s.mann change his name ;) 69.181.253.230 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - meets notability guidelines, Keith.s.mann's nomination rationale is bizarre and a long way from being policy-based; I'm surprised anyone actually acted on it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the user contacted us through OTRS asking for the page to be deleted. I advised him on our deletion policies and he wanted to list the article for deletion himself. There was some difficulty in posting the nomination, so at his request, I listed it for him.  Mike V  •  Talk  23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That makes rather more sense now. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bizarre rationale.  I reject it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply, as himself points out, he is not the subject of this article. Ivanvector (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Individual is notable, as references prove. It must be annoying to share your name with someone whose beliefs you utterly oppose, but there's not much that Wikipedia can do to fix that. There is a historian of France called Keith Mann who might be notable (and a dead American jurist), so maybe the upset party could create Wikipedia pages on them to counter this Mann's presence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep As everyone else has said, Keith Mann is notable and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply as Keith.s.mann isn't Keith Mann. I don't see a single plausible reason to delete this page. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why are we even taking this request seriously? This gentleman clearly has no concept of the purpose of an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2013 (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.