Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Burns (political strategist)

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 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burns (political strategist)

Not nominating this myself, but carrying through for an unregistered user who can't list it. There should hopefully be an argument for deletion in the imminent future from them Shimgray | talk | 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entry was a prank, contains false and frivolous material. 71.194.162.89 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide verification of your claims of falsehood? —ERcheck @ 00:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The following verifies that an "Eric Burns" is press rep for Louise Slaughter [1]. The following verifies that "Eric Burns" worked as communications director for Chris Bell [2]. Agree with above, there is a lot of frivolous material that is unencyclopedic (driving the Jeep, etc.). —ERcheck @ 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I cannot provide evidence that they are false, but I don't believe that most of the claims demand evidence. I don't see how mustaches are relevant at all, or most of the other information for that matter, and what's more, some of the information is not only unverifiable but also subversive. Read the bit about switching parties because of the money, for example. In addition, if you view the history of the entry's changes, you will see that the information you verified (House Rules Committee, Chris Bell) was entered at the same time as all the other information. For this reason, we cannot trust that the article was written in any sort of good faith. Even if it was, then it would easily amount to a vanity article. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Wikipedia as well as for the sake of this individual. 71.194.162.89 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I boldly removed all frivolous information - Jeep driver, mustache, etc. Remaining information does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in a nutshell: who, is not relevant, because everyone is a who, but what that person did is. I'm Jay - no article. I invented the term Test Article (disputed) - no article, but you see where this is going now. --Jay(Reply) 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, remaining info does not constitute notability under guidelines.
Delete. If there's anything noteable about him, the information currently in the article would hardly be difficult for someone in a position to know of said hypothetical noteability to discover and put in on a recreation effort. Michael Ralston 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Monkeyman. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
Deco 23:18, 26 February 2006 (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.