Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew crawford

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 Speedy delete. No assertion of notability and deleted once with the correct capitalization. Pascal.Tesson 18:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew crawford

Andrew crawford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable webforum owner. There are no claims of notability, this article has been deleted once already at Andrew Crawford, my speedy deletion tag was removed by User:DGG, so therefore we have to jump through hoops here. Corvus cornix 02:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for no evidence of notability, specifically for failing WP:BLP. —Travis^talk 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of high quality references to this article is a major concern here. Moreover, there is no evidence of notability in this article as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of secondary sources. Dbromage [Talk] 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (possible speedy delete) it has already been recreated once before. Non-notable. Sources? --PrestonH 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources assert or support notability. --Haemo 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I threw a speedy tag on there. Any time you see junk like this just take it through the speedy deletion process. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 14:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that DGG removed a speedy tag yesterday ([1]) with the comment, "asserts importance. May or may not be, but asserts it, so not a speedy." That's why we have to go through this AfD. On the bright side, once this AfD passes, the article will be readily speediable. —Travis^talk 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment 99% of all vanity articles assert notability. If we used this as a guideline then the speedy deletion process wouldn't exist in the first place. No biggie as this trash will likely get annihilated here in short order. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose you're right about vanity articles. Thanks —Travis^talk 17:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Already deleted before and has no real sources. Screenshots should not count. Xtreme racer 17:09, 28 August 2007 (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.