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. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Sager[edit]

Non-notable BIO; gsearch gives only 8 non-similar hits Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a sneaking suspicion this article is a hoax, based on myspace discussions. At the very least, I haven't seen evidence of notability. (And while the repeated vandalism isn't a basis for deletion, it doesn't help me to feel charitable towards this article). Kathy A. 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't say that its a hoax, but I certainly couldn't find anything in Google about him. Montco 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Sager's notability can be verified. -- Shunpiker 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources appear. Looks like a myspace joke. Mr Stephen 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, block user Cammers7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly pulling AfD tags on this article. Tubezone 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur with blocking Cammers7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to first result in Google being the Wikipedia article itself. NN, D. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After I asked Mr. Cammers to post on why the article merited inclusion, he posted the following to my talk page:

Keith Sager's feminist viewpoints are absolutely key for A level students up and down the country. Admittedly part of his biography is slightly irrelevant- his whereabouts now may not be considered relevant for some wikipedia users, however WJEC, Edexcel, OCR and AQA all stipulate that critics have suitable background infomation provided. Those searching for infomation will be able to use Sager's article as a reference point for their studies before deciding how to use him. Deleting him from this site would be unwise for it is not offensive to those who do not know who he is, but useful to those needing more info on him.

My constant deletion of notices regarding his status is simply to allow students to do their work and not come to me saying wikipedia says Keith Sager does not exist!!!! Patstuart^talk|edits 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I say, that if we delete the article, it's a clear salt candidate, but with Mr. Cammers, we ban for 24/48 hours, once the afd is done, to show that this type of behavior, including via IP hopping, is not acceptable. Indef might be too extreme. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's come to have dialogue. Let's not ban. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Much better than his previous behavior. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have found reference to a Keith Sager here following a search on BT Yahoo, but his only claim to fame appears to be that he edited a book, The Achievement of Ted Hughes. This was back in 1986 though and there doesn't appear to be any information to support the claims which are being made by the author of this biography. Paul from Brum (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (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.