Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wasman

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 Speedy Delete per A7 TSO1D 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fails WP:BIO. Almost certainly autobiographical. I have removed problematic unsourced info (details about mental illness, drug use, the "love of his life") several times and it just reappears. Same deal with the "autobiography" tag. The author/subject also removed a "speedy delete" tag placed by another editor at least once. The subject is an actor/artist of some sort, but other than a reference to a community theatre-type group, there are no details. Says he was mentioned once in "Wired." Even if it says, I think the personal info will have to go. janejellyroll 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Wasman

• I am in the middle of trying to update the Wiki. I am using certain tags, references, and fillers until the data can be fully parsed and formatted. Historical references, reference links, and more WILL be provided in due time. As for removing 'speedy delete' tags, I have been in the process of pasting the article from a text file where I am formatting it so I haven't seen any tags as I have done a 'select all' from my menu and pasted in from the text file. Not sure why this is an issue. There are many Bios out there with less information than this one. Does no one here allow for time to collect data?therealduckie

• Delete The issue is not the amount of information but the notability of the subject. The subject of this article is clearly not notable. Further, from the caption on the only photo included in the article, it can be inferred that the above user is the subject of the article in question. Therefore, this is not only a non-notable bio, but also a vanity article. It should be speedy deleted and protected from ever being recreated in the future. Further, in response to the poster's last comment, enough data to adhere to Wikipedia standards should be collected prior to article creation. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:COI and WP:BIO problems. The Wired article doesn't count; David wasn't the primary subject of that article, he just had a few quotes. - Jhinman 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As much as I appreciate your candor due to the recent issues with Wikipedia's standards, not everyone is Paris Hilton and has a plethora of online data. Some of this data must be created, scanned, researched, and verified. That being said, the fact there there are numerous other bios that exist on Wikipedia which have little to no information, yet are not classified for deletion, leads me to believe this issue is less about merit and more about control. I, personally, would have no issues presenting any and all relevant data in any form necessary, but as with all issues regarding Wikipedia, it was better for this article to be created by those in the know than by an outside source who would seek to villify the content and individual. therealduckie

• Speedy Delete No information as to notability, you would think that that information would be the first thing added to the article. Not everyone gets their own wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, take your pick, this page does not warrant existence. - Ocatecir 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Conflict of interest also often lends itself to crummy articles. Let someone else decide if you are notable enough--if no one else has decided that, that might be saying something like some non-notable person posting his CV on Wikipedia in the guise of an "article." Please don't use Wikipedia as your word processor. KP Botany 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also, Wikipedia does not allow the posting of data you have created. See WP:NOR KP Botany 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Does this not count as notable? David Wasman's IMDB page - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0913609/therealduckie

• Comment Being on the IMDb is not a measure of notability. Being the primary subject of more than one non-trivial article written by third parties which are completely and totally unrelated to the subject constitutes notability. --Charlene 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment First of all, that IMDB entry can't even be considered reliable because it lists projects that happened before the subject was even born and secondly, like Charlene said, no. - Ocatecir 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate guys have a job to do(and apparently a busy one), that's fine...I thought this Bio was noteworthy and of some general significance. All it would take is a simple Google search and you would see the number of relevant articles, which I had intended to include, about this individual. Right now, after spending 2 hours editting code, gathering info, and trying to format it appropriately...I am too tired to fight about it. Do what you want, but again--I think the subject has merit. And the date of that last entry on IMDb is wrong. Most of the actors in that production were born in early 1900. It would seem there was another David Wasman prior to the one in this article.therealduckie

• Comment Thanks. That means it can simply be speedy deleted, as the author has withdrawn his protest of the speedy deletion. KP Botany 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable as of now. Could be later in life, but not now. Ganfon 01:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notibility. Gives useless facts like 'interests' and 'awards' that look like high school level awards. Doesn't even say who or what this person is supposidly noteable for.--155.144.251.120 01:50, 19 January 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.