Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomo Česen


 * 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   keep. AfD withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Handschuh-talk to me 02:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tomo Česen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is on a non-notable and virtually unknown mountaineer. No sources and only one obscure reference. KaySL (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is an inaccurate characterisation - Tomo Cesen is notable for making (or controversially claiming to have made) many groundbreaking achievements in alpinism. I personally do not know much about him, but he is mentioned on several existing pages on wikipedia. I followed a link from one of them and saw there was not yet an article about him so added what I knew. Keithalexander (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: True, but what detail can be gathered is insufficient to justify a dedicated article on him, and the 'controversial' qualification to his claims seems to indicate even more of a lack of credibility. In any case, so far as I can tell, Česen fails to meet any of the standards laid down in WP:BIO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. KaySL (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clicking on the spoon-fed Google Books and News search links above shows obvious notability. Here a just the first few that I checked of those hundreds of sources:. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: These sources merely show that the subject is guilty of perpetrating a hoax. This doesn't qualify him as notable under WP:BIO. KaySL (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep sounds like he is notable. Handschuh-talk to me 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Enough coverage from third party sources to count as significant.  I do not believe we require only coverage testifying to a man/womens outstanding character to be counted for inclusion.  Only that it be significant coverage.  If we were only suppose to use references that showed the individual in good-standing, I guess Jack The Ripper piece would have to be deleted.  Happy New Year. JAAG  Talk 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD retraction; the above points are perfectly valid, though I feel you misinterpreted my comments; I wasn't saying that the article shouldn't exist merely because he's not in good ethical standing, but that all he seems notable for is the one act of perpetrating a hoax, which doesn't appear to be that notable in its own right. However, as the consensus appears to be to keep the article, I see no reason to further prolong the AfD process, and am perfectly happy to withdraw my AfD nomination. Happy New Year to you too. KaySL (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (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.