Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam jordison


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam jordison

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

Insufficient context to merit an article for the subject. Redirect to The Guardian HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but gut the nonsense on the page and fix the capitalization; author of several nontrivial books, journalist(-ish), plenty of attention per web search. JJL (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Despite promising to improve the article twice on my talk page, the author of the only substantial content has left it exactly as is. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Can't vote on this one either way:  Seems notable, but article is in clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Bizarre article which does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't have time to check notability at the moment, but would point out that if this is to be redirected then Crap Towns would be a much better target than The Guardian, as it appears to be the subject's main claim to fame. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no idea who wrote this odd article about me, and obviously can't pass judgement on whether it merits deletion. Would prefer it if you don't just redirect my name to Crap Towns, however. It would be like being caught in a permanent loop... Meanwhile, am quite digging the idea of commenting on my own wikipedia mortality. Am I allowed to verify things in the article? Drop me a line if you do undertake to tidy up and I'll tell you if I think you've got stuff right or not! Samjordison (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2009 (BST)
 * Comment it's usually best to comment on the article's Talk page and let other editors enact any changes to avoid WP:COI issues. But yes, please do that! Sign your posts with this character string: ~ and of course please provide secondary sources for your claims as much as possible (see WP:RS). Be sure to mention if anything is inappropriate on the page (see WP:BLP). JJL (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Right. I'll do that if the article lives on. Thanks! Samjordison (talk) 18:46, 22 July (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.150.187 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Seems to meet notability through numerous books as well as writing in the Guardian, Idler and Independent. Plenty of sources if you do a Google search. Haven't got time to put them in now, but happy to do so next week if article survives this process. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect) to Crap Towns, which is the subject's verifiable claim to fame. Writing for the Guardian is not enough to create notability in its own right. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 23 July 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.