Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Donahue


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Logan Donahue
Non-notable blogger; autobiography. Sorry Logan, Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Delete NN Vanity Jasmol 17:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. You gotta love the "trivia" section - like the article contains anything else! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non Notable, Vanity in the purest sense.-  Dak ota     t     e  ''' 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(Delete) Acknowledgement and acceptance of terms, I always say. I, the author, recognize why this article is being deleted, and do not contest it. Delete it. -- Logan (Oh, additionally, believe you me, I'm not vain. I added the "American legend" line to represent my ambitious nature.)
 * Not vanity as in the feelings of excessive pride; but vanity as in the Vanity guidelines. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to User:Ltdonahue. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out JiFish. I found this particular excerpt rather interesting, however:

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

''Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional."''

While I don't intend to be snide about this, I don't believe anything written was promotional. You proposed 'autobiography' as a reason for deletion, as well as 'non-notable', both of which appear to be insignificant points for deletion. After further investigation, however, I learned that autobiographies are frowned upon and typically result in a mark for deletion, but does not necessarily mean they will. I'm sure you're all well aware of these policies and guidelines, this edition is more of a Wikipedia policy exploration for me. All said and done, the way I see it, my autobiography would be fine assuming it included more than a short, incoherent biography and a few quotes (and useless trivia as has already been brought up). Deletion is still the most plausible course of action, but technically, a rewrite and revision would be suitable, as well, I think. Regardless, seeing as though it's been contested as much as it has already, I'll wait until I'm worth writing about. Gee, sorry, that was a lot longer response than I imagined. -- Logan (PS: I had my own Wiki set-up at one point, and was aware of many automatic codes, but now I'm rather inept; anyone care to point me to a page detailing special codes, like date?)
 * Try, which generates your signature alone (Metropolitan90); ~ , which generates your signature and the date/time (Metropolitan90 05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)); or  , which generates the date/time alone (05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)).


 * Logan, I don't care if this is an autobiography or not. Writing a blog and playing computer games doesn't make you noteworthy. Take a look at WP:BIO.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read your reply in full. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the author/subject is involved in this discussion, I will advise Logan to userfy the content (put the more worthwhile information on his user page). The current article does not appear to contain a claim to notability; writing a blog "detailing insignificant events and general rants" which appears to have only existed for a week so far does not constitute such a claim. Therefore, the content should be deleted from the main namespace. --Metropolitan90 05:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn-bio ERcheck 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity bio. *drew 01:51, 16 November 2005 (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.