Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Sinjin (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was Keep, this nomination is too soon after the last one. --D e ath phoenix 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sinjin (2nd nomination)

Sinjin isn't notable. He has only 428 Google hits[1]. He's the author of one book and certainly not notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Went through AfD two weeks ago with no consensus. Only claim to fame a minor web site. Crunch 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I voted Delete in its recent Afd at [2] but it's far too soon to re-nominate it. Dlyons493 Talk 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yet another WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crunch. Ruby 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. --Ezeu 05:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I thought maybe this person was living in a nation where this might be noteworthy, but apparently it's an American.--T. Anthony 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sean Sinjin is not an American. Galgitron 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the first AfD was brought because User:Galgitron felt there were some privacy issues in the edit history and was asking for deletion of the article because of that, which is really not a criterion for deletion. Notability or WP:BIO-worthiness was not mentioned. This being the case, I suggest that this nomination by User:Jason Gastrich is not disruption to prove a point, but instead is now a "proper" policy/guideline-based nomination instead. howch e ng {chat} 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fairly notable, also this is slightly too soon to renominate the article for AfD. JIP | Talk 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 428 google hits. I have more. Wheres my wikipedia page? --Pierremenard 10:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too soon to renominate. --Bduke 11:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too soon for renomination, also per WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis �Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for notability and Strong keep per WP:POINT. --FloNight 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever book he wrote. If article for the book, then delete. Hurricanehink 17:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINT Jim62sch 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't actually appear to be notable --kingboyk 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to soon to renominate for whatever reason. Jcuk 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jason decided to make it us vs. them and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After a dozen or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Also he is a published author. Cyde Weys 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Arbustoo 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: OK I was unaware of the RFC but aren't most of the keep votes essentially just knee-jerk reactions to the nominator? Can people just consider the article's merits in making a decision? howch e ng {chat} 01:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. This article is going to be kept to make a point. It seems like few people have even bothered to look at it. --Ezeu 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too soon to renominate.Arbustoo 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too soon"? That might make sense if the first AfD nomination was for a valid reason. There's no minimum time span required for renomination for deletion. Although I don't approve of Gastrich or his actions, this nomination is based on Google hits and notability, and as such, the article should be considered on its merits without regards to who nominated it or the previous AfD. howch e ng {chat} 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbustoo and WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reactionary voting to make a point brings no honor to the individuals so voting or to Wikipedia. Either the article meets the guidelines or it doesn't. All votes based on who the nominator is should be discounted. Logophile 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- correctomundo! Many editors are voting to make a point, however, Wikipedia is not a battleground – furthermore, admins should disregard from votes that are not adequately motivated since Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Ezeu 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per --a.n.o.n.y.m. TestPilot 05:24, 26 January 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.