Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Slemen (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Slemen
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very limited notability, repeated insertion of poorly sourced negative information. Subject request in the OTRS system at ticket id 1742437. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete & redirect to Haunted Liverpool, the basic info is already in that article anyway. Rationale on WP:Notability using google gets 6000 hits, looking at google news search gets just one, cant find anything in independent reliable sources where the subject is about "Tom Slemen" the hits are about his book mostly the Haunted Liverpool series. The article is all sourced from primary sources. I just cant find any reason when considering WP:BLP do no harm ethos to keep an article about a subject of limited incidental verifiability thats a vandal magnet when the basic info on the Author is already covered in another article. Gnangarra 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Haunted Liverpool. I agree with all of Gnangarra's comments and rationale. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete & redirect to Haunted Liverpool I agree with this, the entire article is poorly sourced.Rjm (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This author does satisfy a bit of the secondary criteria on WP:BIO, but he does fail the primary criteria.  I think some of the content should be merged and then the article should be redirect. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there is some content that could be merged but with this case the OTRS issues should over ride the retention of article history which is required by a merge. Gnangarra 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While the OTRS ticket should be a consideration, we really should be judging this situation on established biography policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are. Check this section of the deletion guideline where it says to take the subjects request into consideration in cases of ambiguous notability.  Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 2 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.