Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Surdukowski

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 delete. -- Drini 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay Surdukowski

Smells like a hoax to me. Unless more documentation is provided during this process, delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, also not notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need that big bolded "delete" there, you know. As nominator, your job is to write a convincing nomination, not to start things off with a pseudo-vote. I can't help but think you wouldn't have forgotten to include your whole nomination in one go if you hadn't been so intent on "voting". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point might be valid if a nominator always votes delete. That's not always the case; I've nominated articles before that had been speedy deleted and recreated and voted neutral, for example, and a fair number of nominators do the same. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote! You should know that by now. If you want an article deleted, you give your reasoning why — bolded text or no bolded text, that's irrelevant. If you don't want an article deleted, then that's a different issue: but even then, there's no problem with using prose ("I have no dog in this race", say). Sometimes people actually care about the articles we nominate for deletion; we owe it to them to give good reasoning for our decisions. Nominators pseudo-voting leads to poor nominations, and increases the misconception that voting has any place on AfD. This is not something an admin should be doing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD may be a discussion and not a vote, but it's not a round-table discussion - it's a discussion where people express opinions which usually come down to one of two sides (occasionally three in the case of merges). That includes the nominator - and as Nlu says, nominators aren't always expressing the same opinion. I personally find the bolded summaries very useful to indicate who's come down on which side. As for writing nominations, frequently 'this is unverifiable' or words to that effect suffices. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. I don't see any Truman Scholarship winners named this. Metros232 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Changing to neutral for now. Would love to see some one express some notability about him. Metros232 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

None of this is a hoax. Jay did win a Truman Scholarship, form an Arrested Development club, and write about the poetry of the Yugoslavian wars. He is also an up and coming American poet. Within a week, we will have more info, documentation, and fact checking. The page is not finished yet. LMark75 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User's only edits are to the AfD and to the article in question. --Nlu (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.truman.gov/scholar_listing/scholar_listing_list_more.htm?year=2001

Ah, okay, I was looking under Michigan for him thinking he was awarded it while at U-Michigan. Metros232

Google turns up some (actually, hundreds) of items of relevance to this article, most recently (yesterday, actually):

http://findingkaradzic.blogspot.com/

Jay absolutely won a Truman fellowship I have just graduated from law school with him - he is absolutely legit!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.139.92 (talk • contribs)

The issue is not completely just whether this was "legit"; the question is whether he is sufficiently notable. He's not, in my opinion, and the unverified part about Arrested Development makes one doubt the rest of the article. --Nlu (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a break from the mountain of work that needs to be done on the Vampire Chronicles and find out if this is noteworthy. I mean, really, who is monitoring these pages! Lestat is clearly not undertstood by whoever was writting those. In any event, I'll add some stuff to this poet article to calm down. I also feel responsible for the original plug so I'll work on providing the notable info Lohengrin1 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what can be done. Between the AD stuff and the legal scholarship, this is a lot more notable than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPOL

• Delete I'll buy that he's real enough. However, the closest thing to notability I see here are a couple of mentions in newspapers for attempts to get Arrested Development back on the air. I like the show, but this doesn't meet WP:BIO. ScottW 22:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete** Believe me the world will do fine without knowing about this. Williamb 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Approve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.232.186 (talk • contribs)
• Approve It isn't like there is a problem with not enough space - I think a young poet who has a number of publications should get his own space - wouldn't it be nice, as he continues to publish more poems, if the entry could develope with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.139.91 (talk • contribs)
  • "Approve" is not a valid vote. In any case, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Further, even if it is, the author's exceeding vanity as well as self-importance (by referring to the article as "this scholarship" and by writing an arrogant questionaire) warrants deletion. --Nlu (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    Ack! This is not a vote, it's a discussion, remember? While this comment does indeed not present a very convincing argument, really nothing is a "valid vote" :-).--Sean Black ^(talk)

• Comment User:24.61.232.186 added a questionnaire of sorts to here. I moved it to this AfD's talk page since it A. takes up a lot of room on this AfD and B. I don't know of its importance to this discussion. Metros232 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only referenced claim to notability is that he's campaigned for another series of some American sitcom - there is no claim to notability relating to his poetry, let alone a sourced one. That is not sufficient for an encyclopaedia biography. And I agree with Metros that the questionnaire is not relevant here, and belongs on the talk page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I liked Arrested Development, too. Doesn't make me notable. Fan1967 17:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he won a Truman Scholarship for his work at getting Arrested Development back on the air? Nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Too bad about Arrested Development though, that was a great show. How about getting Carnivale back on the air too? I'd love a third season of that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not at all notable—The references in the version of the article as of this writing do not support the contention that he did anything significant related to Arrested Development fandom or it's efforts at avoiding cancellation of the series. Even if he did do something significant within the fandom of the show, he would still only merit a reference within the main Arrested Development article. Everything else—the poetry and whatnot—is just self-puffery.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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.