Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finn McCleave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Finn McCleave
How has this survived since May? This article perhaps best exemplifies the kind of criticism Wikipedia recieves as a legitimate source of information- it's totally, horribly unverifiable, (5 google hits, all from mirrors), and looks like it was written by a drunk 15-year old. Delete with all possible prejudice. Scimitar parley 17:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There should be a speedy criterion for these. I especially like the way it links into Finn (being one myself). :) - ulayiti (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sending this to speedy based on A7. --Howcheng 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- A7 doesn't apply here, since the article clearly asserts importance. I think it ought to, though. - ulayiti (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ah yes, a "visionary filmmaker" for whom no film credits are actually listed, about whom is said "his current film enterprises are few", and whose name doesn't google, despite "gathering strong acclaim". Right. I would be willing stretch A7 to include vague and obviously inaccurate assertions of notability...if not, then delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- IMDB search reveals nothing. A simple assertion of importance shouldn't count if there's no proof. --Howcheng 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ah yes, a "visionary filmmaker" for whom no film credits are actually listed, about whom is said "his current film enterprises are few", and whose name doesn't google, despite "gathering strong acclaim". Right. I would be willing stretch A7 to include vague and obviously inaccurate assertions of notability...if not, then delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- A7 doesn't apply here, since the article clearly asserts importance. I think it ought to, though. - ulayiti (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, not notable, vanity. feydey 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete 09:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Proto t c 14:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Secretlondon 05:58, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
