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 speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the longest vanity article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Having read all 40k or so of it, I found one tiny sliver of notability asserted at the bottom. So it comes here. Was tagged for speedy, but detagged by a brand new editor on one of his first edits as "too long to be speedy".➨ ЯEDVERS 12:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page nonimated by Redevrs. Henry Bigg 1986 12:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you delete this page about Scot then you are committing a crime against humanity. Do you really want to do that? Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportskido8 (talk • contribs) User's third edit of four, two others of which were to article in question ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Scot Sherman is a legend and all of you WISH you knew him, and were him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.10 (talk • contribs)

• Comment From his editing pattern, I think this might be Mr Sherman. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:MUSIC Henry Bigg 1986 12:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable musician by far. Metros232 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to use a search engine. I know it doesn't ring a bell to you, but then again what harn does this page pose to the site if it remained? Henry Bigg 1986 12:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did. There are 6 results for "SHRM4" + "Scot Sherman". There's about 900 for "Scot Sherman" but unless your buddy is a pastor, there's not much that proves notability to him. Metros232 12:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Do not engage in personal attacks. Besides that, the harm is because Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy Delete. Unlike what Henry Bigg 1986, WP:MUSIC actually points out fairly well why this subject is not notable, or deserving of an article. In any case, I'm the person who originally speedy tagged it and am mildly annoyed that the tag was removed. Article size is not a reason for inclusion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 12:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Henry Bigg 1986 also seems to be on a campaign to nullify the speedy delete templates. I would not be surprised if they had an article of their own speedied at a time, or are somehow related to the article's original creator. It's very rare that brand-new users even know what a speedy deletion is, let alone try to get {{db-bio}} deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 12:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The criteria for biographical articles are WP:BIO. However, there is no need to apply them. We don't need to get as far as considering notability. The article cites no sources, and no biographical sources whatever are to be found that discuss this person. The article is simply unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 12:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete No notability asserted. Speedy tag should not have been removed. NawlinWiki 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a vanity page. No sources or even external links given. --Kitch 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular delete - asserts notability, although I had to look hard: [Scot's video] clips have obtained a sizeable Internet fanbase amongst teenage boys and people with nothing to do; much like any of Scot's work that he dares to put on the Web. Barely outside speedy delete territory. Kimchi.sg 12:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a minor YouTube 'celebrity' with no other significant achievements. --DarkAudit 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I honestly see no notability asserted, but I'll write delete anyway because it is so long. AdamBiswanger1 13:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though I couldn't resist cleaning up the formatting. Fails to meet CSD A7 due to assertion of notability (per Kimchi.sg). Powers 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PLEASE, PLEASE keep this article on Wikipedia, for this is a man who truly deserves it. having gone to class with him and witnessed his unique power, I would say that this man is more than deserving of the respect he needs. (Henry Gale, longtime fan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydukes (talk • contribs)
• Delete Unless someone can provide evidence that follows WP:Music, the aforementioned comments to keep go against the indicriminate collection of information policy. --Porqin 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment PLEASE keep this article. Scot is a man very deserving of his own page, and the hard work and effort put in by the page's creator would just make it unfair to all of us who are familiar with Scot's legend. Please, for the love of God, keep this page up! (Phil Schwartz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydukes (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. This is not a vote, there is no ballot box to stuff. Pretending to be other people will not help your case. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VANITY, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:BIO--TBCTaLk?!? 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, I hope Scot Sherman saved a copy of his bio on his own computer as well. --PresN 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:BIO, and a whole plethora of wikibet-soup hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.27.18 (talk • contribs) User's only edit is to this page. Metros232 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Article length shouldn't stop a speedy deletion for an obvious non-notable vanity article. Wickethewok 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY DESTROY - Funny if only because he is listed as a notable alumnus of Hamburger University. Vanity city! Caulfield14 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete clearly covered by Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. -- Scientizzle 23:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, burn and bury the ashes. I cannot remotely see any reason why this should be kept in any form. Fan-1967 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This won't we "speedied" but at least I'll offer my own vote and let this disussion run its course. Reggae Sanderz 01:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above count only has 5 edits, 2 of which are de-redlinking their userpages. Kevin_b_er 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete garbage goes in the furnace. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete vanity, per nom. Rob 01:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom = vanity -- Alias Flood 03:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia should serve to hold a record of all artists so others can link to them when describing influences or possible ties. Since this user has established himself on various internet media and appears to hold relative credentials (small local fan base and radio DJ), I think this might be worth keeping. Acromagalin 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: First and only edit from User:Acromagalin. --Stormie 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc. --Stormie 05:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although this was my first edit, I have been a member since May. Acromagalin 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Non-notable, nonsense. NeoChaosX 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have a video on YouTube too. Doesn't make me very notable, now does it? Sock/meatpuppets aren't exactly helping either... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The meat puppets are an actual band with CDs out. This user is not like you, who may have simply put a video on YouTube, but has established a fan base via the internet with several different types of media including music and video. Not only that, he had a radio show that spanded two years which also classifys him as a disc jockey if anything. Someone could use this source after browsing the archives of the show wanting to learn more about this person. Acromagalin 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I have striked the "vote" as it is the user's second "vote" in this discussion. Metros232 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC's reasoning above. --Wisden17 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VANITY. Forging "Keep" comments from "fans" doesn't help your case, either. Geoffrey Spear 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sorry that other people don't share your same opinion, but I believe this is an article that could serve a greater purpose. Acromagalin 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN vanitycruft - and is this possibly a record for what is prob a self-nom self-written FAC AFD? kewl. *Bridesmill 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everone did this, Wikipedia would just be another myspace. Do we really want this? 69.160.33.76 06:10, 14 July 2006 (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.