Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiji Noda

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eiji Noda

non-notable, and copyvio for the first 70% of the article. Claims to hold patents, granted in 1994; but, article states that in 2001, he was 23 years old. Two or more people with the same name; and the ending link to a weblog points to vanity as well Neier 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete That page looks like nonsense. TJ Spyke 05:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. ~ Lav-chan 09:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just totally incoherent. --Rankler 11:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 64 Google hits. --Nishkid64 18:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—Perhaps the author is sincere, but this material is not encyclopedic in several senses. Fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. May also fail Wikipedia:Copyrights. Delete - Williamborg (Bill) 00:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Victoriagirl 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or perhaps WP:-O as a warning to others -- this is a stunning example of why Google is not a good way to look for information on someone. It looks like the author set out to write an article on someone called Eiji Noda, searched for information on that name online, and attempted to construct a biography based on the information he found. (There is an alternative narrative that better meets Occam's Razor, but WP:AGF forbids me to believe it. ^^) — HaelethTalk 21:27, 18 September 2006 (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.