Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Bradford

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 14:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Bradford

• Delete, not notable, probable vanity.-Mr Adequate 21:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:13, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Vanity. Xcali 21:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Scimitar 21:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- definite candidate for a speedy. -- — I. Neschek | talk 21:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- Either a vanity or a libelous post; deserves speedy deletion in either case. 70.35.176.29 22:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/attack - Etacar11 23:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparant vanity article
• Delete as above. "Vanity" is not a reason for a speedy delete, per WP:CSD. Barno 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but test pages are, and, at least unofficially, slander/libel pages are. Geogre 02:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.