Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Van Der Sluys

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Van Der Sluys

Delete. Vanity page, prod removed by author. Unreferenced and so unable to establish any notability. Fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete vanispam. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- characterising this page as "a vanity page" and "vanispam" is way out of line. See WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Deletion discussions should be more respectful than this.
The article was referenced when I looked at it a few minutes ago, but I agree that it did still fall short of WP:BIO so I agree that it should be deleted.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references were added after the nomination, but do not include any mention of the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Delete as non-notable, for walking all over the biographies for living persons policy and, with the pretty obvious vanity involved, demonstrating amiably what Wikipedia is not. one brave monkey 11:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsalvageable, notability not remotely established even if everything in it is true.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can be easily convinced that the Youth Ambassador position or the award are notable distinctions. The real issue is the complete lack of sources (that aren't wiki mirrors) when I try to google a combination of any of these with the name. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear as non-notable article.--Artypants (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned above, I can't verify or confirm anything in this article. Should be deleted as being unverifiable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable, non notable. Fails WP:BIO. — neuro^(talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The originator of this article has made only five edits in Wikipedia — all directed at this article. In this situation there is the risk of WP:COI. There is certainly evidence of lack of understanding of Wikipedia and the need for demonstration of notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the points made by Dolphin51, Lankivell and WWGB contribute to a case for deletion - interestingly the name is not a publicly notable one in Western Australian media of the last few years - and the claimed character is west australian Satu Suro 05:08, 17 February 2009 (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.