Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John c jay

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John c jay

John c jay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to John c jay. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely fails WP:BIO. This person has not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like self-promotion –SESmith 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (as I originally tagged for this article). Non-notable, cannot verify, overly promotional. Realkyhick
• Speedy delete - A7, tagged. Giggy\^Talk 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm a bit wary about speedy deleting it, but I certainly have no issues endorsing deletion through the AFD process. I'm more concerned about just in case this gets recreated or something or contested, that we can then show the AFD that ran its full course, and say, "This is why we have deleted it." So it's more of a cover-your-butt kind of thing than anything else... SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasonning, even though I think it merits a speedy. If we delete it through AfD, it's pretty much gone for good. Realkyhick 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. WebHamster 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is, quite simply, about an unnotable person. It could also be an autobiography, which is against point-of-view requirements. TheInfinityZero 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete borderline speedy, but definitely a delete. Looks to be a likely WP:COI in play, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per non-notability and also the article is written almost like a resume.--JForget 23:34, 24 August 2007 (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.