- 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. MelanieN ( talk) 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin
- Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Remarkably like a BLP, at first glance, looking closer it is the ramblings of somebody who is differently sane. No notability - needs removing from the project. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- To closing Admin Perhaps look at this related discussion on my talk page. Thx. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability. Article has very little to due with the subject anyways. - Hirolovesswords ( talk) 06:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete An article written by an SPA editor (possibly a vanity piece?) who seemingly doesn’t understand how wikipedia works. The cited references are not about this subject. This is entirely original research. If this subject is notable this article needs to be re-started from scratch using third party sources. Regarding that, the only coverage I can find are trivial, promotional, or self-generated. The subject is apparently a “colorful” local familiar, and writes/creates art about and conducts tours of Salem, Mass. Anything approaching third party is local tourism-type coverage. The works themselves likewise have only gotten promotional type attention, if any. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I've been trying to imagine what this article would look like if the 90-95% of it that is pure fluff would be removed, but even then I don't see an article that would sustain a claim of notability, nor do I see the sources in the article or available online being useful to support a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody did take a hatchet to it earlier today to produce
this but it has been reverted. I would have chopped much more, but it isn't cricket during a deletion discussion I believe? -
Roxy, Zalophus californianus.
barcus 22:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, the article trimmed down to the material about the subject looks even more tenuous than I had imagined. Edited down to the essentials, there's still no claim of notability and no sources to back it up. Alansohn ( talk) 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody did take a hatchet to it earlier today to produce
this but it has been reverted. I would have chopped much more, but it isn't cricket during a deletion discussion I believe? -
Roxy, Zalophus californianus.
barcus 22:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Delete A very large piece of garbage. The sources are as weak as could be, and the only decent ones (NYT, WaPo) seem to refer to something only peripheral to the subject. Delete with prejudice, hast, abandon. 104.163.153.162 ( talk) 23:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even referring to these sources as being "peripheral" to the subject seems too generous. "Nothing" might be the better word! ShelbyMarion ( talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the fucking page already. After all the paring down that I did, it's clear that he posted this to impress his parents. They probably still have his grade school art on the refrigerator.
- 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.
- 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. MelanieN ( talk) 04:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin
- Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Remarkably like a BLP, at first glance, looking closer it is the ramblings of somebody who is differently sane. No notability - needs removing from the project. Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- To closing Admin Perhaps look at this related discussion on my talk page. Thx. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss fortune 06:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of notability. Article has very little to due with the subject anyways. - Hirolovesswords ( talk) 06:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete An article written by an SPA editor (possibly a vanity piece?) who seemingly doesn’t understand how wikipedia works. The cited references are not about this subject. This is entirely original research. If this subject is notable this article needs to be re-started from scratch using third party sources. Regarding that, the only coverage I can find are trivial, promotional, or self-generated. The subject is apparently a “colorful” local familiar, and writes/creates art about and conducts tours of Salem, Mass. Anything approaching third party is local tourism-type coverage. The works themselves likewise have only gotten promotional type attention, if any. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 15:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I've been trying to imagine what this article would look like if the 90-95% of it that is pure fluff would be removed, but even then I don't see an article that would sustain a claim of notability, nor do I see the sources in the article or available online being useful to support a claim of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody did take a hatchet to it earlier today to produce
this but it has been reverted. I would have chopped much more, but it isn't cricket during a deletion discussion I believe? -
Roxy, Zalophus californianus.
barcus 22:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, the article trimmed down to the material about the subject looks even more tenuous than I had imagined. Edited down to the essentials, there's still no claim of notability and no sources to back it up. Alansohn ( talk) 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody did take a hatchet to it earlier today to produce
this but it has been reverted. I would have chopped much more, but it isn't cricket during a deletion discussion I believe? -
Roxy, Zalophus californianus.
barcus 22:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Delete A very large piece of garbage. The sources are as weak as could be, and the only decent ones (NYT, WaPo) seem to refer to something only peripheral to the subject. Delete with prejudice, hast, abandon. 104.163.153.162 ( talk) 23:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Even referring to these sources as being "peripheral" to the subject seems too generous. "Nothing" might be the better word! ShelbyMarion ( talk) 19:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the fucking page already. After all the paring down that I did, it's clear that he posted this to impress his parents. They probably still have his grade school art on the refrigerator.
- 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.