Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Porter

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sasquatcht|c 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Porter

Not notable, web page promotion. feydey 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• This web site was created in September, 2005. Nothing to indicate notability. If comedian behind it had an article, I'd suggest a redirect there. But there's not, so delete. Friday (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Very notable, not web page promotion.
• You must be mistaken. The article obviously states the site was created in August of 2003 (suggesting notability)and David Hamilton, the comedian which you speak of is in fact clearly already mentioned on Wikipedia,David Hamilton (Canadian politician). This is further evidence of the articles notability and legitamacy. I vote to keep it for the above reasons.Mendel the Monk20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, User Mendel the Monk's only edits [1] are to the article and this AFD. -feydey 10:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: BTW, you should mention that you're the article's creator in your comment. I see the date in the article was recently changed from 2005 to 2003. So perhaps this website is older that I'd thought. Friday (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Web page appears to be created recently, and it had a total of 174 hits when I checked (including mine). That it may have been created by a politician does not make it notable. Groeck 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm. This is a tough one. While you all make good points I'm inclined to think keep the article on the condition some things are cleaned up and revised. As far as not many hits on the discused webpage it is certainly gaining popularity since the site is already up to 508. I think the date discrepincy is a little curious but not unheard of. Often times someone doing research may copy a date wrong and than finding the error go back to change it. That doesn't really mean anything. Another thing that might have to be changed is some opinions in the article. Again though I think its alright aside from a few things here and there.|Sjop 00:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)|

• I would strongly suspect that its hit count goes up as result of its AfD entry ;-). Groeck 00:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, User Sjop's only 2 edits [2] are to the article and this AFD. -feydey 10:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it having only 508 hits after all this time, if it was created in 2003, makes it even less notable. -- Kjkolb 05:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn CLW 10:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I just reverted blanking of this page AfD entry by 199.224.5.49. Groeck 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page, contents are non-verifiable speculation. Badly-written, too. -- Corvus 16:29, 26 September 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.