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 keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss : I guess if he could get references for any of his claims it
may make notability and be an interesting story but as written it is hard to know which of the factual claims are accurate. Encyclopedic is another issue as many claims seem to
be trivial or gossip oriented- these could add interest to an otherwise good article but that may be all there is once verification is required. And, sure there is a lot of puffery.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability definitely met. Article needs trimming of puffery, but not deletion. Keep. DS (talk) 23:34, 22 June 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.