Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin Chowkwanyun

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merlin Chowkwanyun
This was a vanity prank... the subjecct of the article has since e-mailed to express his displeasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.238.217 (talk • contribs) 2005-06-26 06:29:03 UTC


 * Speedy Delete I would have tagged for speedy personally but since this is here might as well see it through. weak keep the main reason for this article would be notability but I think this may qualify as notable as per Uncle G's statement Jtkiefer 06:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no speedy deletion criterion that applies to this article. Uncle G 13:10:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
 * quite right, thanks for pointing that out. Jtkiefer  T - 19:36, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy--DNicholls 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Subjects of biographical articles don't get to control whether they appear in Wikipedia. That is a principle that we strongly adhere to in both directions &mdash; where a subject wants xyr biography deleted and where a subject wants xyr biography created.  I presume that the subject of this biographical article mailed, the creator of the article, since it is that user that has blanked it twice and then nominated it for deletion here.  (CSD criterion G7 does not apply.  Others have edited the article.)  It is difficult to understand quite why the subject has expressed xyr "displeasure", given that the article says much the same as do the autobiographies in the by-lines to xyr own stories.  But we should ignore such displeasure in any case.  I've added some references to the article (It had none.) to help editors in deciding whether this writer for Counterpunch satisfies the WP:BIO criteria.  Vote pending. Uncle G 01:34:34, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
 * I don't have circulation figures for Counterpunch available, but the Wikipedia article on it leads me to infer that it is popular enough that the "published author in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" criterion might well apply. On that basis, Keep. Uncle G 13:10:30, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:10, 27 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.