Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Metzl

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 delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Metzl

Non-notable individual. Article seems as if it was designed to promote its subject, rather than acting as a biographical entry. The subject is not a "politician"; he is a minor individual in his purported field who soundly lost the only primary election in which he ever entered. Does not fit WP:BIO. Strong delete. Wikophile 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your edit summary for the AfD states that the article is "non-notable, self-promoting, and untrue". You are entitled to claim the first two (as much as I disagree), but a charge of "untrue" needs far greater support. There is something fundamentally wrong with this nomination if this libelous claim cannot be supported. Alansohn 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is so extreme that I think the nominator's claim of "untrue" was valid. 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Maybe we read different articles or found different search results, but this is clearly a leading scholar in the field and published author, whose work has been discussed in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs and the Christian Science Monitor and published in the Boston Globe, whoch confers a strong degree of notability. In addition to appearing on The Today Show ad other programs, he has been interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. The person is clearly notable in full compliance with WP:BIO, and passes the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard with flying colors. That said, the article is awful and needs to be rewritten and restructured. Alansohn 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, extreme POV John Reaves 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is so poorly written that even Alansohn's valid arguments and a fruitful GScholar search fail to sway me. Stammer 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote for delete? 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs fixing, not deletion. -Toptomcat 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being crappy is not grounds for deletion if it fits WP:BIO †he Bread 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the fact that this guy is clearly fairly senior, he isn't actually notable. Pete Fenelon 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - Per nom. RichMac (Talk) 02:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Batman2005 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite, not delete. Per Alansohn Warhol13 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it's in such poor condition that it isn't able to show notability at all. This guy isn't notable and he doesn't deserve an article. 66.142.236.175 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Terrible article and possibly copyvio, but some notable accomplishments in there, so the topic is worth keeping. -- nae'blis 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to rewrite it? If it's a copyright violation it should be deleted. 134.193.240.105 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Awful article unworthy of Wikipedia, possibly copyright violation, non-notable individual, extreme POV; clearly he isn't notable enough for someone to write a decent article about; this has no place on Wikipedia 134.193.240.105 16:28, 28 November 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.