Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Couteau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob Couteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious notability, links to "famous" redlinked writers and critics; reeks of autobiography (edits by User:RobCouteau and an SPA who may also be Couteau); reads like a press handout by the subject's agent Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems to be solely for self promotion and is also being used to add external links to RC's reviews of novels and writers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hagiographic spamfest masquerading as an article, dubious notability. ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I think that the artist may meet the notability criteria the creation of the article is dubious at best. For one the article has multiple issues. 2nd, the article was created by an account that appears to be a sock of the artist. 3rd, the majority of the edits have been done by an account that appears to be the artist. --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe the individual to be a writer of import and have therefore rewritten the article. It is now more objective. RDHolland (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: RDHolland's rewrite solves the problems present at nomination and proves notability. Nyttend (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - strongly disagree - RDHolland's rewrite does not provide a smidgen of evidence that Couteau is notable; he/she merely lists articles Couteau has written, mostly for the same minor publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And also adds references coving Couteau; as far as I can see, RDHolland didn't do anything to the former "Collected works" section except formatting bits that were already there and renaming the section. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - strongly disagree - RDHolland's rewrite does not provide a smidgen of evidence that Couteau is notable; he/she merely lists articles Couteau has written, mostly for the same minor publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be the case of a guy who self-published all of his "books," then came here to Wikipedia to write an article about himself on that basis. Since these are things that any human being with a checkbook and a computer can do, there's no notability at all here. Completely fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:SPA, and no doubt several more policies and guidelines we could dig up. Qworty (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject appears of minor independent note. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 14 January 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.