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. If Hathery or another user wants to work to improve it, I will userfy. Without any indication that someone will actually work on the article in the userspace, it's delete for now. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zeinert[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No awards, don't appear to have any significant contributions. The statement "widely recognized as the funniest blog in the state of Wisconsin" is particularly problematic. None of the sources are reliable. Royal broil 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this vanity article fails all tests of notability, verifiability, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about speedy but the article has been around a long time with lots of hands touching it. It's not too hard to have a discussion. Royal broil 02:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify It has been around a long time. Was created by editor User:Hathery including uploading pic of subject identified as a photo provided by the subject; Hathery does not appear to be a regular editor now so probably will not see this discussion before it is over, no matter what. I tend to agree notability is not apparent, but let's be nice about this. How about userfying it to User:Hathery's space rather than deleting it, and leaving notice for this editor about how standards for articles have changed and/or about what they are, changed or not. Perhaps there have been subsequent substantial coverage of this person in wp:RS reliable sources, or perhaps there will be future such coverage. --do ncr am 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. As to doncram's suggestion, WP:USER states "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." I'm a firm believer in not letting people get in the habit of using user-space as an alternative to deletion. The article is either worthy of improving, in which case surely someone besides Hathery could do it, or it is not. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (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.