Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Mendez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 We can see where this is going. I'm reversing my speedy declination, and apologies.. Navou banter 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Con Mendez

Con Mendez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm unable to establish reliable sourcing for this subject. Navou banter 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - blatant hoax. Annoying there isn't a speedy deletion option as this is the sort of article that makes wikipedia look silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The author's other contributions include defining "Con Mendez" as an "Astronaught" (sic) and "Local no-one", as well as the "inventor of the hole punch". Combined with the author's username, this seems like blatant nonsense. Saturn 5 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Navou said it wasn't nonsense when I tried to speedy it for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It seemed coherent, and just in case the author can provide relaiable sources, I did err on the side of caution this time. Regards, Navou banter 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The author has now been blocked for vandalism so I don't think any relaiable sources will be added soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously a spoof, delete ASAP. Paste 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks and walks like a duck; no references, not written in encyclopedic language. Good candidate for a speedy. --健次(derumi)talk 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Navou's erred on the side of caution and, being someone who's erred in the other direction, I can appreciate that ... but this is indeed nonsense. Accounting4Taste 19:08, 23 September 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.