This article was nominated for deletion on January 13, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Something Awful.

Anonymous editors have abused what I've written: please see [[1]] for the notability summary I wrote. --Quirex 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Does David Thorpe meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion?[reply]

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

  No one has written specifically about the author, the authors work has been

included in one book and multiple websites.

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

  Yes

• Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.6 (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)

  Maybe

• Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

  idk (i don't know)

• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame)

  WHAT

• Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports..

  Yes, he was the head coach of the North Huxley Peewee league softball team who won the Tri-County championship in '95 until he was banned for life for attempting to sodomize an opposing team's mascot. ^{[citation needed]}

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

  Yes

76.172.109.250 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Has appeared on G4Tv convincing the masses that he is better than them just by appearing before their very eyes.[reply]

• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

76.172.109.250 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, he won Best Web Comic of 2005 from WebComicsThatDontSuck.com as well as Best Music Critique of May 6th, 2005 from BestMusicCritiqueDaily.com.[reply]

• This is the only possible groups for inclusion, that Thorpe is included in

a compilation, [http://www.amazon.com/Capo-Best-Music-Writing-2006/dp/0306814994 Da Capo Best Music Writing 2006]. Is this actually an award? It includes his work but does it review it?

• Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

  No

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.

  76.172.109.250 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, David Thorpe was assassinated twice on May 5th, 2005 before being nominated and then winning Best Music Critique of May 6th, 2005. Rumors abound that his rivals hired a dyslexic turkey to shoot him during both breakfast and lunch. He recovers quickly and was out of the hospital before lunchtime.[reply]

• The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (For a discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics).)

  No

• Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?

  76.172.109.250 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, I can do so right now. It's verified.[reply]

• Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?

  The author needs recognition before it is possible.

• 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?

  Doubtful

• 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

  Doubtful

• Biography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?

  No

• Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3]) or other well-known Internet search engine?

  No, in fact many other well known David Thorpes appear way ahead of this David Thorpe

• Check your fiction -- advice for creating biographies of fictional characters.

  Not fiction

• Notability (pornographic actors) -- Proposed specific criteria for adult movie performers.

  Yes

76.172.109.250 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I have personally directed eleven gang bang films starring David Thorpe where he personally pleasured at least six girls in a row with his enormous phallus. As an amateur porn director it is hard to cite sources, however, I can tell you this much: David Thorpe is a legend among those who have seen him work. He also co-wrote every script I've ever used. Does this go in this section?[reply]

This article and topic lack reliable secondary sources and also fail to meet the notability requirements for inclusion within wikipedia. --Quirex 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is a very funny writer. And Something Awful is a very popular website. And he is an integral part of the site. This encyclopedia is itself web-based, and has a lot of articles about many popular websites. So I think he should stay. It could do with a re-write to make it more coherent, or funny. No, actually, screw this guy. Delete him now. Wikipedia policy should be made a part of the goddamn constitution! Ross Power, Rhodes 58.105.132.180 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]