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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Davis[edit]

Dorian Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A young political activist who has made some appearances on television, and claims to have broken what looks like a non-story about Hillary Clinton's thesis. I do not see a claim to notability. Plus I've speedily deleted it twice for non-notability and another admin has done it once, and it keeps getting recreated. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some apperances on television happens to be over 2 years and 100 episodes of work which is documented on mtv.com and on IMDB.com. I do not see the problem in letting him have a Wikipedia, since many who have done less work than him are allowed to be saved and kept. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbedaftjammy (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the article is presently unsourced, I feel that there is likely to be sufficient infomation on the topic to warrant inclusion at WP. We are not looking for important, just notable. The article is poor, but that is not the criterion for deletion. Research and improve. --Kevin Murray 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt. No assertion of importance. There's a good reason why this has been speedily deleted 3 times before. Crazysuit 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of importance? As such as any other actor or actress on here that has done something SO important. I personally did not know there was a certain rule of 'importance' that I had to go by. And may I ask what these good reasons are? Or was that just being stated without knowledge. I am working and updating this page now, so may I please have a moment before you continue to consider deletion.-Dontbedaftjammy 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, there is a minor assertion of importance as he appeared on some TV show. Still speedy delete it though. Crazysuit 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt vanity piece by a single user account Ohconfucius 04:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt given history. No attribution of notability to independent sources. I'm rather impressed by his use of the almost-unknown interlibrary loan method of investigative journalism. (In other words, passing a publicly available document to a reporter does not make you notable.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and WP:SALT as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of independant coverage. Epbr123 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would like to point out that if you are asking for deletion if you would please give a reason why you would want it deleted. I find it to be extremely unfair for someone to just say deleted if they have no information to back it up. Secondly, I would like to ask, if there is proof of his appearences on television why continue the delete? After admittedly being wrong. There is lack of coverage at the moment because I am in the middle of editing, and I believe I have a fair chance to get more facts and links if you would not constantly delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbedaftjammy (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I think this article could use some work, he does seem to have more notability than others whose only claim to fame is a brief stint on MTV (yet still manage to have Wikipedia articles). The man apparently has some verifiable celebrity, even a bit beyond MTV. I am not sure what motivates those who so adamantly want this article be deleted, when they must surely know that far weaker claims to notability are allowed to stay. Snarky comments made about the man speak more about this process than the intended target, and I hope calmer heads will prevail. Jacksinterweb 23:26, 7 November 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.