Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Jacobson

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) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet criteria for notability, no secondary sources cited; non neutral point of view Shelly No (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has been previously nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. It has also been previously tagged for non-neutral point of view. The original editor claims to have written it "with" the subject. It has the feel of a resume or advertisement. All external links point to the subject's web site. Subject's graduate thesis is cited as a publication. Google searches turn up some primary sources and a few local newspapers. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is claimed as his major work is present in only two libraries, according to WorldCat. DGG (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main book listed is a self-publication and the other is his portfolio. No independent sources verifying his notability found, just self-promotion websites and blogs. Could find no evidence for him being a 'social critic'. Nothing notable about his academic acheivements.Jenafalt (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for the reasons cited: non-notable subject and indications of conflict-of-interest. --Lockley (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2008 (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.