Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StankDawg
This AfD seems to me to rest on two criteria (per my earlier comment): notability and verifiability. To take notability first: as an article that comes under , it looks like notability is being argued due to "demonstrable wide name recognition". ''StankDawg'' generates 953 ghits... but my own username generates over 850, and I'm utterly non-notable. Although ghits is imprecise as a measure, for someone whose identity is - even partially - tied to the web and the IT business, this is a very low hit count (and when one discounts the hits to StankDawg's sig in blogs and forum posts, and the various WP articles and mirrors, this drops even lower). There may well be name recognition amongst a niche community, but from what I could find this is neither "wide" or especially "demonstrable". Then we come to verifiability, which is established by evidence in reliable, independent secondary sources backing up every claim made in the article (preferably using inline citations). Again I saw almost no evidence of this; many of the sources, as tqbf has pointed out, only mention in passing the claims made... and this makes the bulk of the article unverifiable (and hence original research). This is very serious in a bio (see ); unsourced information can be removed at will, and quite rightly unverifiable bios do not stay on WP long
— User:EyeSerene, 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Notability)