Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonid the Magnificent - Wikipedia

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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:03Z

Leonid the Magnificent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reality tv cruft. Not notable, and loser. The fact s/he has been turned down so often should be taken into account MacRusgail 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he has the sources. Please recall WP:NPOV as well, we cannot neglect subjects that are "losers" or "turned down...often". —siroχo 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - unsigned bands are frequently turned down, and are selected for deletion. Like this person. --MacRusgail 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an unsigned band is notable, they will be kept. See KOOPA for an example. It is not the subject matter, but rather the notability that we must evaluate. To do this we use WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BAND, etc. —siroχo 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MacRuswail. --ImpartialCelt 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Siroxo. It doesn't matter if they're a loser, or if they've been turned down often. If it has the sources, it should be kept and this seems to have the sources-K@ngie^meep! 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It does have two sources, but one of them (which is unsuitable for Wikipedia because you have to subscribe) just seems to mention him in passing, and the pages i found when i googled him seem to do the same. But i expect a few good sources could be found.ConDem^Talk 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subscription doesn't mean it isn't a source, it just makes it harder for everyone to read. —siroχo 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, my mistake, suitable for a source, unsuitable as an external link. ConDem^Talk 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its just like pointless informatino like.. "he has been trying" and it is referenced so thats good! but the general Notability of the article is not very high and it fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough, no reason to believe anyone will want to read about this subject five or 10 years from now, or even a year from now. Entertainers really ought to be more successful to get a Wikipedia article. Noroton 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nominator just congested the AfD page with all his cruft allegations, suspected bad faith nom. Wooyi 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article does have sources, and this person does seem possbily notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anyone with "the" as a middle name warrants an entry. (See John the Baptist and Winnie the Pooh.) —xanderer 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Vlad the Impaler Suriel1981 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability, and temporal irrelevancy. - WeniWidiWiki 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wanabee drag queen for having tried unsuccessfully for six years. You have to kiss loads of frogs before you find your prince, honey ;-). The 2 references posted are either "trivial" in the case of the NBC article, and "show marketing" in the case of "Trades", therefore, subject would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep all of them. I am not a big fan of tv, reality or otherwise, but that's not the point here. I thought about asking for merge then realized some of my favorite characters in the fiction genre warrant their own entries at Wiki. Perhaps a decade from now will be the time to reanalyze these tv personality entries. Right now, precisely because I am not a fan this entry at Wiki enables me to educate myself quick and neat with a reliable source that's not full of hype and babble. MarlaB 10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Listed in multiple non-trivial sources, active entertainer. Notable, meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:02, 24 February 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.