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. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Smithey

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a self-designated "celebrity" writer; miserable sourcing, long history of edits by an account claiming to be the subject himself, general mess. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh my God, this dude's the half-brother of Christian Weston Chandler, aka the creator of Sonichu. Either way, there are no sources on him explicitly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unless somebody wishes to write a sourced, neutral article about him. Otherwise, this serves as cannon fodder for the ChrisChan Sonichu fanatics over at Encyclopedia Dramatica. –MuZemike 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need to discuss if the topic, not the article, is valid for inclusion. Messiness and conflict of interest are not reasons to delete. Being unreferenced is a possible reason to delete, but we need to see if the article can be referenced. For example, I found interviews with him at Rotten Tomatoes and Absolute Write, though the latter may not be reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Essentially, we need to vet this person on our own and determine if significant coverage from multiple reliable sources do exist. Erik (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete due to insufficient coverage of a significant amount from reliable sources. I think the Rotten Tomatoes interview is a good example but mainly exists because of the critic being involved with the website. In addition, vetting Absolute Write, it does not appear to be a reliable source. I searched around for more coverage but could not find any, just articles written by this author. I'm open to changing my mind if anyone can provide references covering this figure. Erik (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent COI and blatant use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. The individual in question (User:Cole Smithey, also using User:68.174.85.191) has been posting writeups and "critiques" in several film articles linking to his own work. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Desperate times calls for desperate measures, but Wikipedia should not be used to do your dirty work. Also, has anyone tried to contact him to explain to him that he can't use Wikipedia to pimp his name or let him know about the guidelines? —Mike Allen 07:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reply User:Colesmithey has not only been templated (uw-auto and uw-coi), but was explicitly invited to take part in this discussion, via a non-template message on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. The name above User:Cole Smithey, didn't take me anywhere. —Mike Allen 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find absolutely nothing online about Smithey - see Google news, and lots more at Google web. Writers, even about celebrities, are not automatically notable. I can't find any secondary, much less primary, sources, about this writer. Can you? Bearian (talk) 22:42, 23 February 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.