Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Goethem

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. Sango123 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Goethem

non-notable family name. I have a strong suspicion that this might be a vanity page of GVnayR (who until recently was RyanVG). The creator has the same initials as the surname that is the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not for genealogical entries. In a prior version, the creator of the article used a "source" that linked to a person in the editor's hometown with the same surname as in the article. There had been a {{linkless}} tag, and the creator of the article connected it or created articles to link to it. The edit that made me notice the similarity of the initials of the editor to the surname of the article was when the creator of this article edited User:VincentV to include a link to the article. VincentV has been inactive since 2002. Along with the wildly unsubstantiated statements of unverified (and often irrelevant) "facts", some of which have been excised from prior versions, this an unencyclopedic article. (Another user put the {{hoax}} template on the page, but I don't think that is the case). Agent 86 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless it is improved. See also Guiler, by the same editor. Mr Stephen 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If not a hoax, then still unsourced original research without assertion of notability. --Lambiam^Talk 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, OR, and the fact that too much effort has gone into cleaning up after this author. Fan-1967 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We may have articles like Van Goethem syndrome, but the name itself is not notable enough to merit its own article. It's obviously not a hoax, though, since the name does exist. syphonbyte _(t|c) 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block the author. He/she/it has created numerous articles of similar calibre - most of which have since been deleted. Rklawton 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:OR, no WP:V, could be WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block the author. I prodded half a dozen of their articles recently, and had my {{hoax}} silently removed on this page. -- GWO

Comment: I have removed all the stuff with citation signals and knocked it down to 1 sentence. I suspect in this form it runs aground on notability guidelines as opposed to hoaxing. Revert if the previous version looked cooler. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:50, 29 July 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.