Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myke Hawke
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Myke Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. I'm pretty sure that everyone LOVES Myke Hawke, but that doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see the notablility here 7triton7 (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have no opinion on notability here, but the article history is interesting. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's possible that he is notable, I'm not entirely sure about that, but the article as it stands is unacceptable. It's a very inadequately sourced biography of a living person which contains an awful lot of original research, non-neutral language, and looks more like a promotional page than an encyclopedia article. There are only two references cited - one, a user-generated tv.com episode page for The Simple Life not compliant with the reliable sources guideline, is being used to support the claim he made an appearance on a BBC series about community survival and that he appeared as a survival instructor on The Simple Life 5, and the other is a blog called "Women Learn Thai", also not compliant with WP:RS, is being used as a cite for the claim that he contributed two chapters for a book was published by Paladin Press. All the rest of the information, including all the biographical information is unsourced. If someone other than the subject wants to rewrite the article so it complies with policy, I'd be willing to reconsider, but at this stage I think it should be deleted as it's clearly non-compliant with policy. Sarah 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem is that the subject of the article (supposedly) keeps monkeying around with it. [1] JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2010 (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.