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. Sr 13 05:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Katz[edit]

No assertion of notability, vanity, conflict of interest. Created by Kevin Katz. Speedy and prod tags removed by what appears to be a fellow band member of his. Resolute 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Dominion. Resolute 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Authors who write for local magazines, and have not recieved any independent coverage are not notable. And what really gets me is when people write vanity articles...and use their real names. Doesn't that just make it obvious? Calgary 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many people innocently believe that Wikipedia is something like Geocities, and it isn't entirely their fault that they do. Others may just take a "throw against wall, see what hits" approach. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Edit summaries hint at notability, but not with enough specificity or WP:RS, and what they hint is far from substantial notability (rising notability, might be viable in the future but not now, etc). If they really are more than meat-puppets trying to build a WP:GARDEN and can give us some substantial documentation for present notabilitity, I might overlook WP:COI, but the clock is ticking loudly. DMacks 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean WP:WALL? Morgan Wick 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Shows some notability, but is written by himself (supposedly), and lacks information that makes the person good enough to be on a encyclopedia. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Anyone you writes an article about themselves deserves to have it deleted. In any case, he's not notable yet. Wikipedia is not a method of predicting who will become notable. I might be famous one day, but that's no reason for me to go and make an article about myself just in case. Anyway, did I mention Strong Delete? Mr pand 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Writing an article about yourself is discouraged, but not forbidden. WP:COI is a reason for concern, not a rationale for deletion. Please don't indulge in instruction creep. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess he can write about himself (it's recommended not to, but not banned). He just isn't notable Recurring dreams 13:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he is notable, writers for local newspapers generally aren't. Also conflict of interest, which doesn't help. Hut 8.5 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't people who write about themselves feel silly? Cap'n Walker 19:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. All editors above, please read Don't bite the newcomers. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if writing for local papers and magazines is notable, then I'll start on my own article right away. National and international publications, maybe - but right now, this person isn't notable enough to meet WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more snowball for Mr Katz. --Targeman 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd like to see a re-write before a deletion. Something needs to pique my interest, raise a bit of controversy, or create debate. That all needs to be in the first paragraph to keep me reading. People wrote about me on here and I have edited their writing about me for verity in facts. Hardest thing about writing for yourself is that its hard to write as a third person about you, thats why Wikipedia doesn't recommend writing for self but its not illegal. Rivet me to read about this guy, and I'm sold! Anthony Chidiac--Achidiac 12:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Peer review. We aren't making decisions on whether or not it's a good article to read, we're making decisions on whether the subject deserves a Wikipedia article. Morgan Wick 17:35, 21 July 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.