Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Reed

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. — Scientizzle 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel_Reed

Daniel_Reed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Patent Nonsense, person doesnt seem relevant enough to be have an entry Naon34561 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but you're not going about this the right way. This isn't patent nonsense. It's just unverifiable, lacking rationale for notability, and an unsourced biography of a living person. WP:NONSENSE is an entirely different thing. Estemi (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The sort of rubbish that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Dreamspy (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable individual. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment suggest that the nominator overview Wikipedia:Patent nonsense: Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. The nominated article is quite clear and concise. Yngvarr (c) 10:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete IRC operator? Even without sources the article only claims "some footage was shown" of the subject in one case. Nothing is backed up, and even then there's not enough of an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (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.