Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt hooker

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. jni 13:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt hooker

Well, it clearly isn't a vanity page (or if it is, he's decided that there's no such thing as bad publicity), but he's non-notable. DS 00:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Never heard of this guy before, but a google search for "Matt Hooker" nicole gets 284 hits. Seems to jump the hurdle of notability and verifiability, IMO. - RedWordSmith 01:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough - 130 Google hits (Matt Hooker + Nicole Kidman) including hits from his own website and blogs. Megan1967 02:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, simply not notable enough. Rje 03:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- not notable and his website is down. 208.51.105.139 03:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be vanity/joke. — Brim 09:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promoting crank, entire article is PoV. Wyss 20:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it. —RaD Man (talk) 09:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is a real person--I remember seeing the news reports about him when this happened. And note: per Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, "lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates".
• Delete, nn stalker. GRider\^talk 20:03, 14 Feb 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.