Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Van Leer (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 Article speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Rockpocket 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blake Van Leer

Blake Van Leer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This is essentially a recreation of the an article that was deleted by AFD on September 10, 2006 (original AFD discussion). I don't see anything substantial that might have been added that would cause the article to satisfy WP:BIO this time. I was tempted to request a speedy under G4, but am sending it to AFD. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this, however I would like to suggest keeping the article. Mikemiddleton 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Mikemiddleton (talk • contribs) is the article creator. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not seem likely to pass WP:BIO - for instance, "Multiple features in popular culture publications" FreplySpang 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - He is related to noteworthy people such as other Van Leer's. He is also featured in very popular magazines such as Cosmo Magazine. This Magazine is distributed nationally. Maybe someone can wikify it and clean this up some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianrothchild (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
  • — Brianrothchild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - Keep. I do think it could use a clean up though with more specific references. Drouillm 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep! - Black Thunder / ssj4goku111 There's no better article, and hard work was put into it. It may need a touch up, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssj4goku111 (talk • contribs).
  • — Ssj4goku111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, fails WP:BIO and no new evidence presented or any real claim that he meets it. "Related to noteworthy people" is not a criterion, and no evidence that Cosmo has written about him has been presented. Perhaps he appears as a model in Cosmo ads? That is not notability. Additionally, the recreation of deleted content and the blatant conflict of interest-gaming count against any leniency. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO by an astonishingly wide margin. No reliable sources (article is currently "sourced" by press releases and an entirely different person's IMDB entry, offered as someone Van Leer has "worked with"). The Cosmo exposure ("sourced" by part of a press release that does not mention Van Leer by name) was apparently some sort of "One hot guy from each of the 50 states" gimmick article so he was not the primary focus. His own resume on his personal website notes that the highlights of his acting career include such pivotal roles as "Boy" in the West Nottingham Academy production of "West Side Story." Plus he uses way too much product in his clearly severely damaged hair, but I suppose that doesn't really have a bearing on his Wiki-worthiness. Otto4711 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and lock lemma, as already said in the first deletion request somewhile ago, the author is that guy himself, and he anounced already he will be keeping to readd himself. --Jestix 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice some sort of nerdy "rivalry" here between some kind of online gaming group (Shadowclan) and that guys that make this Blake Van Leer topic. To my mind that puts the legitimacy of some of the keep/delete votes in question. I have no doubt that quite a few of these delete requests are just being done to cause turmoil for instance. Personally I think the article should be given a chance to redeem itself as it does sound like there are verifiable claims of notability. The problem is just that the article needs time to be cleaned up. I say "Get a life!" to all those partaking in this online gaming feud. Drouillm 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Luckely Im in neither of this gangs ;-). I highly doubt that the article author isn't this guy himself. Which is really a no-go --Jestix 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• For the record I have nothing to do with Shadowclan nor have I ever heard of Van Leer beofre this nomination. Otto4711 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not a online gamer at all (yep, believe it or not I've never played World of Warcraft :-P), so until the first deletion nomination, I had never heard of either of these gaming groups. Because I wrote a talk message on the original article asking if it was WP:COI and suggesting moving it to user space, it ended up on my watch list. That's how I happened to notice it was recreated. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Um, yeah, not a gamer here either. FreplySpang 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There clearly is evidence that he was not in an ad in cosmo magazine and was actually written about and listed with several other bachelors from each state. You can google the issue that he was in when you search 2003 cosmopolitan bachelor's November issue. However this was 4 years ago and I'm not sure if it's still noteworthy. I don't think an article's status should depend on someone's hair style or if it's damaged...... Waargboom 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) — Waargboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• As has already been pointed out, the much-vaunted Cosmo article, discussed at this press release linked in Van Leer's article, takes as its subject one bachelor from each of the 50 states. The press release for the article, which was called "Hunks Across America," lists 50 different names of people who appeared in the article. Van Leer is listed in one line as the hunk from Maryland. Even if this article is accepted as a verified reliable source (and I have no problem accepting it as such), Van Leer was not the primary subject of it. He was one of 50 subjects who, if this article was typical of articles of the type, had at most a single page and most likely a half- or a quarter-page as 2% of the article's subject. This does not come anywhere remotely close to satisfying the requirement that coverage of an article subject be non-trivial, and even stretching the point beyond all reasonable lebgths and counting this as one source, there do not appear to be any others. Otto4711 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• From what I understand your correct that Van Leer is listed among many. However each "hunk" or "bachelor" has a half or whole page with detailed information about them. There also appears to be more resources when you use yahoo or google search. I suggest we keep and clean it up.68.33.135.26 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where are these additional sources? Otto4711 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete CSD G4. So tagged. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowclan or Shadowclan you'll find that the user above who tagged this for "speedy delete" is a shadowclan sockpuppet which would back up user Drouillm's claim of a "nerdy rivalry". Waargboom 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your accusation of sockpuppetry is cute, but I actually had the Blake Van Leer article watchlisted since Blake announced in the first nomination that he would recreate this article if it got deleted. Since he and his bunch were involved in AFD nomination of the Shadowclan article as well, new activity there from him also seemed likely. Sure enough, eh? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Waargboom, I suggest that before you go about making accusations of sockpuppetry, you find out what it is. As Shadowclan is a Wikipedia article and not a Wikipedia editor, it is unlikely to log itself in under a different name and do some editing, unless the MediaWiki software has some AI enhancements of which I am, at this time, unaware. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was acussing Simoes of sockpuppetry and now he basically admits being a sockpuppet and having personal motives or an agenda that involves a "nerdy" rivalry of online gaming. Perhaps someone could take necessary steps to handle this sockpuppet? Waargboom 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and second the speedy. Clear vanity article with no substantial notability. The mention in Cosmo as the "hunky bachelor from Maryland"? Please, I read Cosmo and not too long ago they had a write up about creepy coworkers and named some guy from Santa Cruz who would sneak into the woman's restroom at work to steal soiled feminine napkins. That mention in Cosmo certainly doesn't merit a Wikipedia article for him and it doesn't merit one for this guy. Agne 04:28, 5 February 2007 (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.