Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Layton

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. W.marsh 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Layton

Andrew Layton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nice kid but nn self-published author (book by Virtualbookworm publish on demand house), fails WP:BIO, few unique ghits, authored by SPA with no other edits. Tubezone 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless something new comes to light. Perhaps an article on the book with the author bio there if it meets the notability criteria. Harro5 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think. Nexis found an article about him. The wikipedia article was terrible, and I have rewritten it, but Nexis did find an article about him, and he does videotape veterans, and has won awards for it. Uucp 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nexis found ONE article. Still misses WP:BIO by a country mile. Lots of kids get scholarships, self-publish books, etc. Delete as nn. I've self published books that get piles of ghits, and have been on the web for 10 years, yet I don't get a Wikipedia article. So a 16 year old kid whose parents help him publish a fancy book shouldn't get a WP article, and friends of the author of the book shouldn't guilt editors into keeping an article on a non-notable author. EVERYONE wants to honor WW2 fighter pilot veterans, but IMHO this object would be better served by work on individual articles on the important fighter pilots rather than keeping an article on a totally swell but non-notable (as an encyclopedia subject) high school kid. I think Andrew Layton himself would agree that the point of encyclopedia articles on the subject of fighter pilots should be to honor notable fighter pilots, not Andrew Layton. JMHO.Tubezone 06:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• I say Keep it. This kid is impressive. I found plenty of hits about him on dogpile, and a couple more articles that were pretty good. Sure there are lots of high schoolers out there who get scholorships, and maybe a few who publish books, but have you ever heard of a 16-year old getting a special award from the U.S. Congress? I haven't. Andrew is evidently a pioneer in youth volunteerism within the VA, let alone his accomplishments in writing and in filmmaking. He is obviously a rising star who has a great career ahead of him. It's refreshing to see our youth rising up to do positive things like this. If VA and congress have given him so much credit, why shouldn't wikipedia? The kid is an inspiration.walkintheline 10:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: walkintheline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • WP:MEAT. Harro5 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see someone added references, still, it's up to Wikipedia editors to come to a consenus on whether this meets notability guidelines, or violates WP policies on advertising or vanity, this is a discussion, not an election. I would note that use of single purpose accounts to vote on this issue actually detracts from a notability argument (notable people don't need to use SPA's to argue for notability) , and raises red flags about advertising and vanity issues. Tubezone 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Last night a friend informed me that she had submitted my name for a biography page on Wikipedia. When I took a look at her nomination, I was flattered by the amount of references and facts that a number of people had taken the time to track down about me. To be honest, I was surprised that a couple of editors had even suggested keeping it. However, I would agree with user Tubezone that I really do not belong in this database. I am grateful to those who left their comments and revisions for the page, but I give it a delete vote unless someone else adamantly thinks it belongs here ofr some reason. Tubezone, you were right when you said that the people who should be getting wikipedia articles are the veterans who have fought and sacrificed for our freedoms here in America and not people like me who got lucky with a couple of scholarships. Sorry for the inconvenience and any confusion that this may have provoked and thanks to everyone for their time. I’m honored even by the consideration. – Andrew Layton. “History is more than just places and dates. It’s how those places and dates changed people’s lives.” Andrewlayton 08:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I am torn on this one, he has certainly accomplished alot, but just barely passes my own rather flexible definition of notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While not the New York Times, the references are many and varied that establish notability. --Oakshade 03:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If his only claim to fame was the one self-published book, I would say delete. But it is not, and for a kid that is quite noteworthy.--Nascarfan1 18:44, 11 November 2006 (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.