Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalan Edwin Decker
- 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 by unanimous consent as a poor biography with no notability, and no reliable sources. Also, it is in violation of the rule against prognostication, because the author's first publication date is in the future. Can be recreated when the subject is verifiably notable. Bearian 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dalan Edwin Decker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - 4 Google results for "Dalan Edwin Decker" and 5 for "Dalan Decker". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO "Writer" with an upcoming vanity-press book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An article on an author of a single, self-published book (forthcoming). Fails WP:BIO. The creation of Jorgerodriguez1000 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the biography policy. STORMTRACKER 94 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines, no evidence of coverage in independant reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article about a non-notable author with no reliable sources. I see no reason to keep the article. — Wenli (reply here) 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found this in the aforementioned author list, and my recommendation is that we delete the article as non-notable. K. Scott Bailey 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone strenuously objects, I suggest we close and delete per WP:SNOW. There is no way that this article has any chance of being kept through this process, as there are no reliable sources cited, no evidence of notability, and it clearly fails WP:BIO as well. Objections? K. Scott Bailey 18:13, 6 November 2007 (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.