Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Lebron

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 though it was a bad faith nom, no one had any arguments for keeping beyond the procedural speedy keep, several made unchallenged arguments to delete. Sorry that a bad faith nom got an article deleted... but really there seems to be a consensus for deletion anyway. W.marsh 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Lebron

None notable person. And a article made by m8v2 who hates battlefield 2--Badhand 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Person is notable and this is a attack on me for putting a bunch of battlefield articles up for deletion--M8v2 02:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, bad faith nom. Recury 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep bad faith nom and someone remind the nominator of WP:CIVIL Wildthing61476 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While this nomination was pretty clearly made in bad faith, I previously proposed this article for deletion due to non-notability. It still has no references and I cannot find any relevant hits in Google for "Frank Lebron", "King Optix" or "BaD Bayonne" (except in Wikipedia mirrors). Perhaps this is because the subject of the article is only 16? In any case, I still have doubts about the notability of the article. BlckKnght 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, this is obviously a bad faith nomination which often will push people to vote for a speedy keep without checking the article, however after reading the above comment and checking the article I believe that, despite the issue of bad faith (which Badhand needs to have discussed with him), there article is of a non-notable 16 year old kid who does some hacking and, furthermore, it is completely unsourced and unverifiable. --The Way 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with BlckKnght and The Way – bad faith or not, the subject isn't notable and there are no sources provided to verify the claims in the article. KrakatoaKatie 23:23, 6 November 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.