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. Sr13 (T|C) 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Eade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Person claiming to be the subject has been attempting to blank or otherwise clear most facts from the page. Claim of inacuracy have been made, though the references look good, and nothing is particularly negative to make this a major BLP issue. This is mostly a procedural nomination. The main reason I would see for deletion, beyond the subject's wishes, would be notability. The article claims a "British National record". The sourcing backs up the feat, but says nothing of it being a record. So the record itself is not confirmed. And the record would be the only reason I can see for notability in the first place. So, with the one claim to notability unsourced, I myself am a weak Delete on the thing. While the desires of the subject are not enough to remove a article on a truely notable person, in a, at best, marginal case like this I would lean towards getting rid of it. TexasAndroid 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TexasAndroid. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If he is the record-holder, he's notable,so we should try to see if anyone can verify that. And anyone can claim to be anyone in an edit summary. DGG 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the source says he exceeded a British national record, but the result is unofficial. I don't think an unofficial record should count for purposes of WP:N. If and when he is able to have an officially certified record perhaps the article can return. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my tentative comment above. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Dhartung, the possible record cannot count as notable because it was unofficial. Actually, after looking at Bench Press world records I'm not sure that even if it was an official record it would be important enough for inclusion. There is no other claim to notability in the article and a quick internet search doesn't reveal any either. Smalljim 22:04, 8 May 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.