Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Dishman

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Dishman

Seems to be a personal page, doesn't meet threshold of notability. -- Curps 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article states that he "plans to debut his work" later this year. If his work has yet to debut, he is definitely not notable. IrishGuy 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per prohibition against crystalballism.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 02:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what Myspace is for funny man.

• Heh, I'm Drew Dishman, and I didn't know this was here. I'm sure some friend of mine made it. Damn, wikipedia yourself sometime and find an actual article. That's funny. I may nhot be a noteworthy figure but I do exist and its accurate. Go ahead and delete it, but props to whoever posted it. It was probably for my birthday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.149.60 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 April 2006.
• Delete does not yet meet guidelines for notability -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The goal of Wikipedia being to contain the "sum of all human knowledge", I do not see notability as an adequate factor for deleting this page. The desire to keep away cruft is good, but altogether, accuracy in mind, articles on individuals we have not heard of do not by themselves merit deletion. In regards to "crystalballism" (itself a guideline-forbidden neologism), of course feel free to edit that out of this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.149.60 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment that is a seriously weak argument. Of course wikipedia cannot be the sum of ALL knowledge. Otherwise everyone ever born would deserve an article and that is just silly. IrishGuy 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• If it wasn't for the fact that Curps removed the speedy tag, I'd be strongly inclined to speedy this as recreation of deleted content and nn-bio. In any case, userfy to User:Toxoid, or delete. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Closing comment: I wished Jimbo hadn't used that expression, since it contradicts basic policies of Wikipedia (and therefore we can assume that we didn't really understand what Jimbo meant, since he cannot be wrong, as we all know :). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 20 April 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.