Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Dushku

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Dushku

Vanity. This 17-year-old claims notability in very improbable ways. The page was de-prodded without a comment and without fixing anything by User:BriandavidII. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, per nn and load of crap. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is one of those incredibly rare instances where the number of "unique" google hits means something. "Results 21 - 23 of about 40,900 for "Jimmy Dushku"" is not good, when 1-23 are all webforum posts and such. This is the exception rather than the rule ;> . — Adrian Lamo ·· 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page about a prankster whose pranks don't come off? Being related to a notable actress isn't enough to make the subject notable themselves. zap2.js's comments above confirm this for me.  (aeropagitica)  07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. Very nice layout and formatting, however. --CrypticBacon 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack page (a6).Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Sorry. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. None of his pranks appear to have worked and no verifiable evidence of notability. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity biography. I don't think it's an attack page but I won't mind if someone else speedies it under A7 or snowball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-28 08:55Z
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7, article states he did these outragious things and won't "Admit to them", sounds like someone playing them self up to be something their not. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:45, 28 February 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.