Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hessburg

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark_Hessburg

Delete - Page seems to be Self-Promotion and not appropriate F739 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge the parts of the article that are relevant to Chassalla, his band which seems a bit more significant (active since 1989, a couple of releases). Obli (Talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This is pretty marginal, not much on google, but he is a member of a notable band... I could go either way really, but seems noteworthy enough. I don't see any basis for the nom's claims. rodii 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I agree with rodii, subject is just a hair-width away from notability. The article also looks like it was written by non-English speaker, but that could be cleaned up. Ifnord 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pintele Yid
• Keep per above. Associated with bands that have pages here + nom has given no argument for deletion as I don't know what not appropriate means. -- JJay 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This article could be cleaned up and brought to a higher standard. He is a personality worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Arviragus 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable member of a notable band. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC
• Keep. As Cookiecaper. Luka Jačov 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- Astrokey44|talk 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets notability standard, no evidence of "Self-Promotion". JJay: I am guessing that the nom means not appropriate as non-encylopedic. Turnstep 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Sphnx 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the user's only Wikipedia contribution. Turnstep 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doesnt seem to be self-promotional - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep Per Turnstep ComputerJoe 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a strange way of spelling "Keep" :) Turnstep 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops! ComputerJoe 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it does not look like self promotion to me either Yuckfoo 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Of the four delete votes, 2 don't give any reasons, and 1 (Computerjoe) says "Delete per Turnstep"--but Turnstep voted to Keep. Would you deleters care to clarify your reasons at all? rodii 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per rodii Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Cookiecaper; article needs to WP:CITE its sources though. Hall Monitor 20:53, 13 January 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.