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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Passantino (2nd nomination)[edit]

Dom Passantino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Vanity, vandalism, nonsense Yaoichan 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Vandalism isn't a valid reason for deletion, especially when the nominator is one of the people doing it. Phony Saint 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - Phew, that's the first time I see someone adding questionable content and then directly sending the article to AfD... For the article as such: Certainly it needs improvement - no secondary sources, and that alone makes notability questionable by WP:BIO. But given the circumstances: Give it time to improve, reconsider it later. --B. Wolterding 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sending to afd looks like a hatchet job to me. Capmango 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep speedy keep in this instance due to obvious bad faith nomination. Questionable is quite an understatement to describe the content added. DGG 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note" The only contribs. of the nominator have been this nomination & the vandalism to the article concerned. DGG 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It may indeed be that this is a bad-faith AfD nomination, but even so the article fails on its own merits to convince of notability. This guy's a webzine editor with only a few lengthy articles under his belt. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually Dom writes for the Guardian. Jonathan Williams 17:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, he's written exactly six pieces for the Guardian, none more recent than last September, most of which are very short, in fact only one of which is longer than a one-paragraph review (and that barely). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above Bartleby 08:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above --Jonathan Williams 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per jbmurray. Obviously a bad-faith nom, but where is the notability? —David Eppstein 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Petersen (talk • contribs) — George Petersen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep; the notability is for senior position of notable webzine and history of writing for other notable publications. John Vandenberg 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C'mon. He's in 9th spot on Stylus magazine's stafflist. None of the eight above him have WP entries. Why should he? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If everyone who ever tackled a music review or was on an unpaid list of 'staff' on a webzine were listed it would surely make a mockery of notability. User:Trebuchet 13 June 2007.

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.