Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. James Block

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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. James Block

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note evident WP:Conflict of interest by the creator, who has been adding links to ~~Imagineer~~ Imagineer Magazine and its EL to many articles in a short space of time.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they likewise assert no notability apart from being editors of Imagineer Magazine, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and were created as part of a WP:Walled garden for that article, with prods contested by the same anonymous IP WP:SPA as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is of appropriate size about a well-known journalist in Michigan. Should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no primary sources and the conflict of interest is obvious. Eeekster (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- There are primary sources. 3rd party sources are still needed and can be added with diligence. I see absolutely no conflict of interest. Please point out one sentence that reflects this conflict before making such an outlandish statement. Thank you. --Dr. Dajay Hawkij 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete -- As a neutral observer, I find it ludicrous that these articles, especially those regarding the Imagineer Magazine, Alexander and Brentoni are being proposed for deletion. I can attest to the fact that these magazines are being read, not only in Michigan, but in Paris, France, where I attend university with Brentoni. This is not a run-of-the-mill publication. Look at the interviews they've published! Thanks. Yann-Yves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesameroll (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC) — Sesameroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked this editor for suspected sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- None of these articles pertain to persons of interest or notability. "Dr. Dajay Hawkij" is an obvious alteration of the poster's username, who also happens to be the primary writer of the entries in question. The "nuetral observer" is questionable as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.127.169 (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete these pages, when will you stop? I added them because they are of equal merit as plenty of journalists that have wikipedia pages referencing their work. They are well-known in Michigan's journalism community, and I would suggest not disputing that unless you live in Michigan and are a part of the broad intellectual community. Sesameroll is not a sock puppet. Just because someone agrees with me and is familiar with the publication and the journalists means that they must be a sockpuppet? That's ridiculous, with all due respect. And my username is an alteration of my real name! I would appreciate a great sense of reason within this discussion, as it now seems to have stooped to low blows and namecalling. Thank you. --Dr. Dajay Hawkij 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajayhawk (talk • contribs)
Delete Completely non-notable. He is 17 years old and is listed as "associate editor" of a small (tiny?) quarterly journal in Michigan. That journal and its two editors also have Wikipedia articles. ~~I wonder if they should be next on the chopping block.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see now that MuffledThud already nominated (above) the two "editors" for deletion, and I concur with Delete for them as well. Then let's take a look at the article for Imagineer Magazine itself; seems completely non-notable and most or all of the links are self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2010 (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.