Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Young (Ufologist)


 * 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.  —   Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Young (Ufologist)

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

I have discussed the article with administrator User:Kbthompson. The person fails all the criteria listed in WP:PROF. Per WP:PROF, the person should have published works which are covered in independent reliable sources, the person should have received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national or international level. The works by the person should have significant impact in the academia - this guy fails all the criteria. The article was written and expanded by two pro-paranormal editors and. The article is a tribute, not according to wikipedia policy on notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete most listed publications are self-published, obit is drawn from a personal letter. To be retained there would have to be a significant statement of notability drawn from reliable sources. (In appraising these matters, my 'bit' is irrelevant - it's only the closing admin's bit that is relevant). Kbthompson (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I love how you guys don't bother reading the articles. There is an obit available in the Cincinnati Enquirer, feel free to look it up yourself. I would think that a guy who's research is covered in major network prime time television specials alone would be note worthy enough to have on here. If you have a problem with UFOs, or the "unknown" genre in general, take it up elsewhere where personal opinion matters, not Wikipedia. SeanFromIT (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with keeping the article - if and only if this notability is expressed in the article. Its not enough to put up a 'tribute' and then say "his notability is self-evident". When an article appears here, it is a strong hint that there are existing problems with it. The way to answer your critics is to fix the article; if that were done, I would reconsider my opinion. Kbthompson (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he is indeed a "multi-award winning television producer, director and writer" then he should come in under WP:BIO if sources are provided.  (Note that under WP:PROF the "highly prestigious academic award or honor" criterion is only one of several alternatives.)  On the other hand the article could do with a lot of work and as it stands quite fails to show notability by WP:Reliable sources.


 * Delete claims tonotability are not substantiated from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I hate to just echo someone else's argument at a deletion debate, but Guy hit the nail on the head. Oh, and "personal correspondence" as a source? You've got to be kidding. Does the editor have any concept of verifiability? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You know I can read this. The correct line would have been, "Could he please share the personal correspondence with us?" Instead of spending 10 seconds in this echo chamber, spend 10 minutes and do the verification yourself. Everything is well documented, and you're more than welcome to edit the article to your standards. SeanFromIT (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That could be confirmed through the WP:OTRS system; but the principle problem is that articles should be based on independently published material. I do appreciate your problem, but it relates to the fundamental wikipedia principles of verifiability and reliability of sources. The best place to deal with those issues is probably the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As to the rest, read the advice on self published sources and their use in wikipedia. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (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.