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 --JForget 00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Hoey

[edit]

insufficient notability; references do not meet WP:BIO - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a meta-question in play: is publication in Landfall sufficient to qualify for notability? If yes, then Hoey is notable; if no, then he isn't. It's too early for me to opine on that right now. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I'm having trouble even finding this guy's name somewhere in this publication. I scrolled around, tried a trext string earch on the web page, but haven't yet found him... Besides, I don't know that the one mention is enough for WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in one notable publication is not wide, independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he's listed in the web page as "Tourettes", the pseudonym mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a notable mention, then; no one could tell who that is unless they already know teh guy AND know he's been published. How else can we tell if he's notable enough? (I'm at home on idal-up, so searching further is taking FOREVER.) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In searching, I found his Bebo page. I'm going to say that publication in Landfall is enough of an assertion of notability that the article is immune to speedy deletion. However, I don't see enough out there to get him to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough to evidence that the subject is notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, one publication in one literary journal doesn't really meet what we would seem to require; a lack of outside coverage makes notability very scarce. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that his name doesn't appear in the references makes them useless as any indication of notability.-gadfium 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Detele. Fails WP:BIO; doesn't qualify under WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. There is no indication of notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2008 (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.