Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Layton

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, redirect to Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton, and protect. Spellcast (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Layton

Michael Layton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is unsourced, almost certainly made up. Note the name of the first author is the page name. Someone tried to speedy, a few editors have tried to redirect. Time to sort out. I suggest in the end we may ned to WP:SALT based on the edit history. Obina (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton on the grounds that the latter aticle has sources, notability, and civil contributors. If necessary, semiprotect the page and block User:Michael Layton. Wikipedia can do without this sort of behaviour. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect sounds reasonable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect is definitively the way to go here.Manxruler (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and protect per SheffieldSteel. This nonsense has to go and that plan seems like a good way to keep it from coming back. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete (to remove edit history), then Redirect and protect per SheffieldSteel. This is the sort of unsourced nonsense that gives wikipedia a bad name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 25 November 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.