Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xious sonenberg

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. Wizardman 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xious sonenberg

Geogre's law. Hasn't done anything notable. StaticGull Talk 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7 NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure this is a speedy candidate; the article I read did attempt to include references. But those seemed to be to a blog/review site, not obviously a reliable source since they seem to have originated with the subject of the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can include more references, like some of the TV shows this guy apparently wrote.Wikigonish (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geogre's law confirmed once more. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Hardly even asserts notability, it's pushing an A7 speedy in my view. No particular evidence that this guy's done anything at all worthy of inclusion. If the film and TV scripts he's written were actually used in notable shows, then he could also be notable - but it doesn't sound like it and I can't find any mention of him in relation to any. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: fails WP:BIO and lacks reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additional references to the stub. I'm trying to find more for some of the other details. I don't really know what WP requires to be "noteworthy", but FYI, I read a lot of his stuff on Treocentral, and it isn't a blog site. It *used* to be a very cool on-line magazine, although it went downhill after they downsized their staff. -Raymand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atariusa (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 August 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.