Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Williams

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 Delete --JForget 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Williams

Courtney Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article reads like a fan site. No WP:RS sources found, only numerous forks of WP's own article plus user-submitted sites. Was inclined towards a Not-notable speedy, but age of article and number of edits made me think a few other opinions would be worthwhile Manning (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep remove all the fan cruft and other unsourced rubbish and you may have something worth keeping but i still can find little reliable sources for notability. --Neon white (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN and Promotional. WP:BLP applies unless reliable sources can be found. Spawn Man Review Me! 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yikes, strong delete. Removing the promotion and spamlinks here would trim the article down to maybe two lines. There definitely isn't enough notability here to warrant a keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because article reads more like a biased magazine article than a neutral encyclopedia article, which fails to meet guidelines at WP:NPOV. It is also difficult to determine notability for this article. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete just an extended tour of the (nn) subject's own web site. JJL (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is spam. --Lockley (talk) 18:28, 17 December 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.