Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam VanHo
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. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam VanHo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod declined by author. Author is Adamvanhoforjudge (talk - contribs), a glaring conflict of interest. References are divided between primary sources and court documents indicated that he was the judge in various cases. Nothing to indicate notability. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Few independent references, and no news articles coming up in a simple Google search. The office VanHo aspires to also does not seem particularly noteworthy (sub-county level).Cmprince (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for no notability and conflict of interest issue. Clubmarx (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no hint of notability for a candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN by a mile. Valenciano (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Conflict of interest is not against policy. Just starting an article about yourself is not grounds for deletion. Far worse cases have been kept. Having said that the subject does appear to fail notability and that is a reason for an AFD nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Fails notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2009 (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.