Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Michael Clarke

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Clarke

May be an article about a non-notable figure. There are a handful of Google hits (< 10), and he appears to have won an award (but I'm uncertain of the importance of said award). A previous entry at David michael clarke was speedily deleted earlier, but I believe it was blanked before it was deleted. For what it's worth, it appears the author of the article is writing about himself (if the username is any indicator). Locke Cole 08:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'd have trouble accepting that one award 10 years back counts for much. And have a look here. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Does not seem notable. -- RHaworth 09:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article author has left a note at Talk:David Michael Clarke that may be worth considering. I'm still undecided, but leaning towards Deletion. -Locke Cole 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Non-notable per WP:BIO. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across wikipedia, and was amazed at how badly it reflected the art-scene in Scotland. I have already spoken to a few other artists who are going to send me short biographies so that this can be put right. There really are not so many prizes for professional artists and this should not be the criteria for inclusion. Rather it should be based on activity and peer recognition. I know it is not so easy to find stuff on me on the net. It is a problem when you name is quite common. That is why I am also currently working on a website to regroup my work, which has been ongoing now for 15 years. If you want to check out my day job, here is where I teach:

http://www.esbam.net/html/S1_equipe.html

-Daveclarke

DELETE The FIRST sign that an article is VANITY is that it is an auto-biographical entry. If this person were so important, someone who doesn't know him personally would have written an article on him already. In his soapbox, David Michael Clarke appeals to nationalism and self-promotion. That it is "not so easy to find stuff on me on the net" is a good reason to suggest that David Michael Clarke is NOT NOTABLE.Ryoung122 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook case of vanity, or misplaced myspace.com profile. Davidrowe 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable. Dottore So 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.