Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Sherwin (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sherwin

Entry is non-biographical in nature, conflict of interest, obvious self-promotion, blantant advertising and lack of content neutrality. Content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Nemjersatyr (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AFD should go ahead and someone established wants to endorse it, fair enough; but I'd be inclined to scrap this as a bad-faith nomination. Nemjersatyr (talk · contribs) has made no previous edits. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very full debate last time. Nom seems er, inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Debated in depth last time and the article improved considerably during that debate. Nom's reasons are either inaccurate, dubious or editing concerns not deletion reasons, even assuming they are correct in the first place, which I don't think they are to any substantial degree. Does the nom have any explanation to reassure other editors about this AfD being his first and only edits to wikipedia? Ty 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get the feeling that I've been here before...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passed AFD with a substantial keep decision not that long ago. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Passed previous AfD which nom seemingly ignores. Lack of edits scares me, but even assuming WP:GF, the article has enough sources for me. DARTH PANDA ^duel 02:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey guys, way to divert attention away from the reasons why the articles does not meet wikipedia's content policy and that the article was in fact clearly authored by the person it is about.. You did this by pointing out my lack of wikipedo experience. Well good for you. Also, I will go as far to assume that some of you are probably even friends or associated with the article's main subject or the free advertising contained within the article linking to subpar art websites and other unremarkable "curators" (i.e. dolts who like to think they are important enough to be notable in an online encyclopedia). If the users who asked to keep this article are not part of a biased little army then you are all just stupid, plainly put, as it clearly shows by you lack of reasoning to keep the article. Thanks for unveiling yourselves as morons. In closing, I don't really give a shit if this article is deleted or not because now I know who's who and what's what in the scheme of things and it was pretty fun to see other people's weak retorts and attempts to stifle a wikinoob the likes of me. Thanks faggots! lol :D 207.225.250.46 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 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.