Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bome

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. Everybody wants it deleted, for different reasons. Recreate is up to y'all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bome

No information given about notability and seems to fail WP:BIO. Crystallina 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Bome" and "sculptor" pulls up more than 20,000 hits in Google, but this current article appears to be plagiarized from at least a few sites. For example: [1]. Aplomado ^talk 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: An article on Bome is justified, I think, but the current text seems to be a copyvio of [2] (unless it is the other way around of course). Fram 09:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate. Copyvio, found on numerous sales sites, probably created for widespread use by publicity/marketer. According to Page info: "Modified", this site, for example, predates (Dec. 2005) the Wikipedia article here. —Centrx→talk 21:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copy-vio per Centrx, I've confirmed his research. Article is to old to qualify under CSD:A8. GRBerry 01:59, 21 June 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.