Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Swann: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:51, 7 February 2023

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Swann

Not notable. Article is perhaps even vanity. I can't find anything about him. Posted by Casito

He has become quite well known as part of an emergent sub-culture. Certainly the magazine for which he writes exists, and they mention him on their site. He was on the radio last week being interviewed about TV turn off week. He's been on quite a lot of radio recently, in fact and I've read some of his more serious political stuff in a number of magazine.

I'd vote for it to stay, perhaps without the quotes though, that seems like a bit of preaching on the part of the poster. Posted by User:dandyfop

- Actually according to the page history [1] [2], comment posted by 82.35.77.15

Delete, notability not established, possible vanity. Megan1967 05:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No third party sources, thus seems not notable and vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Some of the article is absurd, but Googling on "Michael Molyneux Swann" reveals that he does exist and does write for The Chap Magazine. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. R adiant _* 07:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Existence is not the same thing as notability. Rick K 19:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Overlong, often not encyclopedic in style, contains unverifiable claims. Anything that would be kept would require citations. Average Earthman 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a... um... oh forget it, vote as above. Master Thief Garrett 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. <br>The result of the debate was '''delete'''. &mdash;[[User:Xezbeth|<span style="color:red;">Xezbeth</span>]] 12:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 ===[[Michael Swann]]===
 Not notable. Article is perhaps even vanity. I can't find anything about him. <small>Posted by [[User:Casito|Casito]]</small>
+*He has become quite well known as part of an emergent sub-culture. Certainly the magazine for which he writes exists, and they mention him on their site. He was on the radio last week being interviewed about TV turn off week. He's been on quite a lot of radio recently, in fact and I've read some of his more serious political stuff in a number of magazine.
+I'd vote for it to stay, perhaps without the quotes though, that seems like a bit of preaching on the part of the poster. <small>Posted by [[User:dandyfop]]</small>
+**<small>Actually according to the page history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FMichael_Swann&diff=12599675&oldid=12599646] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FMichael_Swann&diff=0&oldid=12599675], comment posted by [[Special:Contributions/82.35.77.15|82.35.77.15]]</small>
+*'''Delete''', notability not established, possible vanity. [[User:Megan1967|Megan1967]] 05:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. No third party sources, thus seems not notable and vanity. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] | [[User talk:Zzyzx11|Talk]] 05:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+*Weak '''keep'''. Some of the article is absurd, but Googling on "Michael Molyneux Swann" reveals that he does exist and does write for The Chap Magazine. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 05:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', notability not established. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_*]] 07:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''.  Existence is not the same thing as notability.  [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 19:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. Overlong, often not encyclopedic in style, contains unverifiable claims. Anything that would be kept would require citations. [[User:Average Earthman|Average Earthman]] 22:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+*Delete. Vanity/promo. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 05:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', Wikipedia is not a... um... oh forget it, vote as above. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]] 21:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+:''This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '''Please do not edit this page'''.'' </div>
-He has become quite well known as part of an emergent sub-culture. Certainly the magazine for which he writes exists, and they mention him on their site. He was on the radio last week being interviewed about TV turn off week.
-He's been on quite a lot of radio recently, in fact and I've read some of his more serious political stuff in a number of magazine.
-I'd vote for it to stay, perhaps without the quotes though, that seems like a bit of preaching on the part of the poster.