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 article is amusing. Sadly, the person is notable only for one event WP:BIO1E. Harsh (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is not amusing - I didn't even crack a smile. And the person is not notable for one event; they are notable for their name which has been celebrated by multiple entertainers. The nomination therefore seems quite false. Warden (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There doesn't seem to be a speedy keep reason here. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, i suspect he meant "Strong". Rusty Kuntz, Harry Baals, and Dick Assman do not have any special rule that applies to them.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SK reason is 2.e — that the nomination is "so erroneous" that it should be dismissed immediately rather than wasting our time for seven days. Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, "so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". It is clear to me that the good faith nominator did read the article in question. You'd have done better to adopt Milowent's defense. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean what I say and I say what I mean. WP:SK indicates that a nomination may be erroneous in a variety of ways. In this case, it appears that the nominator hasn't read or understood WP:BIO1E just as it seems that SummerPhD hasn't properly read or understood WP:SK. See RTFM. Warden (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may indeed mean what you say, but that is not related to whether or not you are correct. Your interpretation of SK 2.e and BIO1E are not the only ones. You seem to be of the opinion that "has not even read the article in question, looked at the file license at all, etc." covers your belief that the nominator's interpretation of BIO1E is incorrect. "Speedy keep" is not a catch-all for bios that you just want to keep because you like it. While it is obvious that their interpretation differs from yours, you haven't addressed the first -- universal -- half of SK2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption". IMO, your explanation of the second half (2e) was weak at best. In any case, someone unrelated recommends deleting it, so your reason is now (even more than previously) moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My !votes are obviously my interpretation of the topic, facts, policies and so forth — that's why they appear in a distinct entry to which I append my sig. In this case, I stand by them and consider your heckling to be vexatious badgering. If you have something to say about the question before us — whether the article should be deleted — please enter a !vote of your own. Warden (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable for appearing once on the David Letterman show? Gimma a break! –BuickCenturyDriver 13:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Warden, that is dumb even by ARS standards. The "event", as it were, is simply being known for having a humorously offensive last name. Muitple late-night talk show hosts talking about does not make that "multiple events", any more than more than 1 reliable source talking about the woman-walks-into-mall-pool makes that "more than 1 event". Christ on a crutch... Tarc (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An attribute is not an event — that's a category error. The point of WP:BIO1E is "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." If a person has a distinctive attribute then the appropriate article to write about this is the article about the person. This goes double when it's the person's name which is distinctive because the name is the best title for the topic as it will be what readers search for. There is no separate event here and no separate article about this non-existent event. WP:BIO1E is not a catch-all for bios that you just don't like. Warden (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest this should be kept on the grounds of numerous precedents including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Gottfried. Mr. Assman was the subject of widespread international coverage over this, and is still referred to in Canadian papers, showing the event has lasting notability - no matter how stupid and idiotic that may be subjectively. I am happy to add citations to the article of press coverage if that would help editors see the notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reading of BIO1E is that it cautions against having a separate article when a person is famous for one thing, and that thing has its own article - in such cases, the name can redirect to the article (e.g. Satoshi Nakamoto, Sarah Spiers). This does not apply in this case. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He didn't just get coverage for being covered for a month by David Letterman. He got coverage for doing things outside of Letterman. [1] They list him in a travel guide and he sells Assman merchandise. [2] He still gets mentioned years later, although nothing in too great of a detail that I've yet found. The American ambassador to Canada declared him an international celebrity and visited him. 49% of Canadians recognize him. [3]DreamFocus 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a GNG question, not a BLP-1E question, in my opinion. As such, it passes, based upon sources showing. A minor celebrity based on a silly name, but a minor celebrity who is the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage nonetheless... Carrite (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC) My kiwi friend thinks the name of the great American baseball pitcher Randy Johnson is extremely hilarious...[reply]
Keep. This individual clearly isn't notable for only one event. He might not have become famous if not for the particular event that got the ball rolling, but that isn't what the guideline means. —David Levy 02:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not remotely a 1E - he's not a person who was involved in an event, he's famous for being Dick Assman. WilyD 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting case. It's true it's not strictly 1E given that having a weird name is a feature, not an event, but even if it was 1E, the "event" would be the name itself, so the only conceivable title for the article is the name. Sources show notability. --Cyclopiatalk 00:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the reason for his notability (as outlined by Dreamfocus) is absurd doesn't make it any less notable. Too many parts to his story to be labelled "One event". PhnomPencil (✉) 13:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage across multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (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.