Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Radbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Radbourne

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Subject is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry - it is nothing more than a vanity entry (something that is borne out of the fact that the Wikipedia account that created this entry - twosheds 316 - is the same account name that he used all over the internet for Instant Messaging programmes, websites and the like). With that in mind, and that it goes against Wikipedia's content policy (don't write entries about yourself), I would urge you to consider this subject for deletion.XstraightX420

  • I absolutely agree with the above claim. It's a complete vanity piece and is completely undeserving of an entry in Wikipedia.Famous Mortimer 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just adding my full two cents again. There are plenty of other wrestling and MMA writers who deserve Wikipedia entries - people who are actually known throughout the world, rather than to a small audience. The fact that he feels the need to boost his ego by citing a list of "awards" that he allegedly won by voting multiple times for himself on a website.

Also, writing for a web blog on a website that takes just about anyone (see Eurosport) does not make you a credible writer, in my view. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was a Wikipedia entry that he/someone has done to put on his resume - something that you can tell by the lack of depth that the writer has given to each section of his "life".XstraightX420

  • Delete As above, yet another blogger. I reverted a semi-amusing vandalism to this article earlier, otherwise I wouldn't even know it was here. Soulresin 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Optichan 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, vanity, vanity. There seems to be a spate of vandalism today, as well. --Gekedo 21:14, 27 July 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.