Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Skilbeck


 * 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   no consensus. leaning delete, but really NC.  MBisanz  talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Skilbeck

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

Per wp:blp. The biography of living person guideline states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". I could find no sources on this person. The only editor to the article is the subject. A clear violation of wp:coi. Adam in MO Talk 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Check out this and skillzy's user page. Seems like a clear conflict of interest problem to me.--Adam in MO Talk 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - There are absolutely issues with the references, some of which don't mention Skilbeck at all, and some of which are links to other Wikipedia articles, which aren't sources (and also don't mention Skilbeck). However, the first few references do mention him, and he is clearly notable within his fields of journalism (author of two books) and biking (founder and president of a group known within the sport). Also apparently a photographer. I also note strongly that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion of an article. Just because an article's author is (or is close to) its subject doesn't mean the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion. We should address that issue separately, and the article is tagged appropriately for this. Frank  |  talk  13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I wrote Paul Skilbeck's original wiki page, but since there was a lot of techinical information(places, times, dates, exact titles of books, etc.) I asked him to check the page and make sure that I got everything right. I didn't think that was a violation of the Wiki guidelines, but if it was I apologize. bhilden 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - notably lacks any evidence of notability. Any one of the acts attributed to him - writing two books, founding a (smallish) club, being a photographer - does not prove notability. It needs much better sources to show general notability. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Yes, the article is bad, but I'm finding sources.  This man is very often quoted in outlets like the NY times:, I am seeing him referred to as a "mountain biking expert" and "longtime cycle journalist".  He's also mentioned frequently in association with Race Across America.  Question: some of these articles refer to bowling and (?)cricket.  Same person?  If so this would further demonstrate some notability in multiple areas, if not, they can be ignored.  I think this man may be notable though.  Cazort (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Needs quite a hefty copyedit, but the notability seems clear to me from the sources listed above and in the article. The CoI is no reason to delete, but the CoI should still stay until someone independent has cleaned up the article. -- Ged UK  21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP. 11 days after nomination and the article is still a mess, no assertion of notability. As Bearian noted, these things listed do not establish notability. Currently appears that the subject fails WP:BIO. ₳dam   Zel  17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment BLP states to remove controversial and unsourced material, not to delete the article. I found far more sources than are currently given in the article.  We should be discussing whether these sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability.  I am not 100% persuaded one way or the other but I am leaning towards a keep and I would appreciate feedback from others on what they think of the sources I found.  Cazort (talk) 18:13, 13 March 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.