Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Taylor

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. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bo Taylor

Bo Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tag claimed "No adequate source of information, probably self-written", which seems like a good prod reason, but given the assertion of note, isn't a speedy. -Splash - tk 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a non-notable performer. Probably is {{speedy}}, actually. Not all assertions of notability are valid.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If he has appeared on TV and in Playgirl for 30 years (and I'm not claiming he necessarily has), then it's not a speedy in my opinion. Splash - tk 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — only "reference" is imdb which points to Peter Lukic, with the only acting credit being "FBI agent #8". The only two "Bo Taylor"s in imdb are non, notable (one played himself in a documentary and the other is a lighting technician in a 1974 film). — ERcheck (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete This article was previously deleted. The original article was even more of a fantasy than this one (in which he claimed to be an Academy Award-winning actor, among other things) but this one still has a lot of unsourced and very unlikely claims, like "owns his own broadcasting company." The creator of the previous article was BoTaylor456, who also created a series of other related hoax pages, which I prod-ed. He was also blocked twice for constantly uploading pictures without the appropriate copyright procedures. See WP:ANI on BoTaylor456 or my user contributions for more details. (Note that apparently he also makes a lot of edits under anonymous IP addresses.) --Proofreader J-Man 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete as obvious NN. However, any assertion of N, self-asserted or not, must be checked by AfD, and does not fall within the domain of speedy. Speedy is only for unquestionably non-notable subjects. DGG 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- we seem to be arguing about whether or not this article fits the exact wording of whatever it says in the current revision of WP:CSD, not about whether or not we should have this article. If we really need to find the right rule to apply, now about speedy-ing it as a recreation of deleted content, assuming that is still a criteria? Jkelly 19:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The criterion only applies to articles previously deleted as the result of WP:AFD that are substantially identical to the deleted version. Since the previous deletes were speedy, this criterion does not apply. — ERcheck (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...Oh, yes, you're right. My mistake. Jkelly 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that "vandalism" is a criterion, but all suspected hoaxes do not qualify. — ERcheck (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note that the article has recently been completely replaced by its present version. The nominated version, if that's of interest is here. Splash - tk 22:08, 10 April 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.