Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. evan sackett

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 speedily delete as A7, G4, G11... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. evan sackett

Does not seem to be notable. The only external link is to VisualCircle, which is "maintained and designed by Evan Sackett". Google search returned matches, but not the same person. Rjd0060 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - "Due to Sackett's low amount of publicity" just screams WP:COI to me. This article seems to be only written to promote him and his works and does not explain his historical significance or influence in art. → Hot Dog Wolf 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources available to demonstarte notability. The article "C. Evan Sackett" has been deleted before under AFD and speedily deleted. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Sackett). --Beloved Freak 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (WP:NOTABILITY). Self-published author who, in the words of the article itself "is not yet very popular", is "virtually unknown to the literary world" and has a "low amount of publicity". Several pages on this subject have previously been deleted (Evan sackett,Evan Sackett 3x), as admitted in the article. Cosmo0 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To wit: "[h]e is so unknown that Wikipedia, itself, has rejected numerous articles posted about him on the grounds that he isn't "notable enough." Give him credit for creativity. He's notable for being unnotable! If that's a new criterion, I'm starting an article on myself. Freshacconci | Talk 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So being so unnotable is in itself notable. That would be something, wouldn't it? Nice comment, gave me a laugh. - Rjd0060 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Doesn't this qualify under CSD G4 as a recreation of a previous deleted article? Whether or not it does, I also suggest salting the space when it is deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree that salting may help, but each time the page was created, there were slight variations to the name, so it may be pointless. - Rjd0060 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely seen an article offer up its own deletion opinion like that... Speedy delete and salt, for what it's worth. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 14 October 2007 (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.