Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Asher: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 6: Line 6:
*'''Delete''' - a lot of people that aren't really notable are on Amazon. --[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]] 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - a lot of people that aren't really notable are on Amazon. --[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]] 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Wikipedia isn't a PR vehicle. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Wikipedia isn't a PR vehicle. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [[User:69.219.154.4|69.219.154.4]] 11:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:12, 6 April 2006

Created apparently as a vanity page; Nagle reports an email from the subject denying this but the evidence is strong. This alone not grounds for deletion. Not much in the way of sources. This alone grounds only for cleanup, not deletion. I inclined to support this article for inclusion; I considered researching the subject and making it a proper article, eliminating the taint, etc. But I did a Google test with surprising results: 60,200 hits and only 425 of them unique. This smacks of relentless self-promotion by a small-timer and utterly undermines any claim to true notability. Combined with the weakness of a vanity article, charges of sockpuppetry, and lack of sources -- sorry, delete. John Reid 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. See Talk:Lee Asher for discussion of notability, possible sockpuppet issues, spamming of other Wikipedia articles, etc. Phr 06:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]