This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2011. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Hundreds of astronomy podcasts, editing Universe Today, reaching tens of thousands of listeners... I want my $35 back, Wikipedia. For shame.
Narphlan (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree that the subject should have an article, but the deletion discussion could not justify keeping the content because all topics must be verified to meet the notability requirements. If anyone has reliable sources not mentioned in the discussion, please post information about them here, and perhaps the article could be recreated (but new sources would be needed). By the way, if anyone reads the deletion discussion, ignore the "Vanity and self promotion" comment made by a misguided passerby who clearly did not consider the actual article or its subject. The issue that led to deletion was the failure to satisfy the above notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq hit it. For the record, prior AFDs are generally held to prohibit re-creation unless there is a change in circumstances -or- information not considered in the AFD comes to light that addresses the concerns raised therein. So, if anyone has information that shows the subject meets the notability guidelines that was not considered in the AFD, that may be grounds for restoring the article. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
