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 delete. As with The Griffin, I am prepared to userfy if Dontforgetthisone assures me that he has actually found sources for notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: the person now at this title is a different man, moved there from Phil Griffin (presenter). JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Adding Phil Griffin (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains no indication of notability; I can find nothing in news or web searches. Only reference is the facebook page of the now defunct retail store subject founded. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Page userfyed Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This links to a disambiuation page, and the "buisness man" option redirects to the diambig page, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have reverted my non-admin closure of this discussion per the nominator's request on my talk page, as there appears to be more behind this AfD than I was aware of at the time I closed it. Note that the page under discussion is currently at User:Dontforgetthisone/Phil Griffin. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the disambiguation page is included in this AFD, it needs to be tagged as such. If it's not, then user pages are not subject to AFD and this needs to be closed. If you think the userfied page should be deleted, then MFD is the way to go. The nominator can easily add the DAB page to this debate, if they so choose. Or, hell, per IAR, I'm going to do that anyway right now. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was unacceptably userfied. This is the second time this editor has userfied this page in response to a deletion discussion. Were I the closing admin rather than the nominator, I would not allow userfication, because it serves no purpose: no amount of work on this article can ever make it meet the notability guidelines, because the person simply isn't notable. Thus, I asked Kuyubribri to re-open, and I am moving the article back into mainspace. Per the AfD process, the page may not be blanked while AfD is under discussion, which is basically what Dontforgetthisone. While it is ultimately the closing admins decision, I hope that userfication will not be allowed unless someone can suddenly find a reason for possible notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - userfication is almost always a reasonable compromise position when an article is sent to AFD. The first time it was userfied was in response to a PROD - and you can object to a PROD just because it's Tuesday, if you like. When he moved it back to the mainspace, material appears to have been added, indicating at least a reasonable good faith effort to improve the article. If indeed the author is attempting to dodge deletion by userfying, that's why we have MFD - use that process and put it to bed. BLP does, in some cases, preclude userfication, but here we have what appears to be a neutral BLP backed by some sourcing - the article might not show notability, but it doesn't breach BLP. So I don't see any reason not to permit the userfication, and then take the userfied page to MFD and have done with it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My opinion (which is not necessarily a majority opinion, but it's not idiosyncratic) is that userspace must exist to support the encyclopedia. This article cannot support the encyclopedia if I am right about the subject's notability. The problem is, MfD often comes down to the "does no harm" principle. However, if the closing admin wants to allow userfication, I'm not going to fight it. I do object to the user superseding process before we can get a consensus on the subject's notability. Heck, for that matter, pre-emptively moving it to userspace makes it impossible for anyone else to improve the article--it's like the user saying "this is my article, I'll fix it or no otly ne can." Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources that I was able to find. The only reference in this BLP is a facebook link which is hardly a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As you know, I am currently trying to locate some references from off-line sources on Phil Griffin as I know they could make this page notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2012 (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.