Jerome Lulling

Jerome Lulling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

procedural nomination as another user added the article to the AfD list without tagging the article itself. My assumption is deletion based on notability issues. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "tagging" the article. I only found out how to do this about a second ago when I saw you've already done it. I nominated the article because it looks like self-promotion. Facts:

• Lonk list of weblinks to sites (seemingly owned by that person) that do not add any considerable value to the article.
• Publishing videoclips on youtube is generally not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

--217.86.18.197 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you want to delete an article about somebody who is mentioned in other wikipedia articles, just check the

luxembourgish language article. Mister Lulling is probably not known in England, but his achievements for the luxembourgish language are indeed undeniable. This article has to stay, imho.

Interesting also that you talk about the youtube clips 'being not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia' .... highly interesting, since there are so many links to youtube clips inside wikipedia articles, but, maybe you only consider them 'worthy', if they are about popstars like timbaland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleya (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional, no real assertion of notability. The "keep" arguments above use poor logic... youtube links are NOT endorsed on Wiki, and are typically reverted by a bot. Tan ǀ 39 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just rewrote the text, adding proper references and new information regarding Lulling's published works. I also corrected the title of the article to reflect the correct spelling of Lulling's first name. Admittedly, Lulling is unknown in the Anglophonic world. But his contributions to preserving and enhancing his nation's language is extremely notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm getting used to you editing behind me and frequently opposing my opinions, I just reviewed all the references.. and I don't think any of them constitute the required "significant, reliable coverage" needed. In fact, most of them aren't coverage at all, just mentions on websites. Tan ǀ 39 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I am not upset about Eco's editing behind me here, his opinions are valid and typically very well-reasoned, and I just happen to disagree with his !vote on this AfD. In no way was I trying to be snarky or bitter. Tan ǀ 39 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Article seems fairly new and I do like to give editors the benefit of the doubt when they are actively making efforts to improve articles and believe they have value here. As it doesn't appear to be a hoax, I'd like to see how it can be improved further, which I think it should, i.e. it should have section headings, for example. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just a comment - I have no special interest in deleting this article - but the guideline you cite states, "a week should be enough". This article has been around three times that long. Tan ǀ 39 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not in such a bad state as to be hopeless. --Forego (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Le Grand Roi's comments. Director33 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]