Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Smith, Jr.

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. --Coredesat 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Smith, Jr.

Michael Smith, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable, unreferenced and possibly libellous Kittybrewster (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or improve. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Reads like an auto-biography. Corpx 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, but from the History, this page is currently serving as no more than a slanging match between supporters and detractors of the subject. Emeraude 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable.--padraig3uk 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Heavily vandalised and subsequently stubbed. I'd have reverted it, but it's not really worth keeping. BTLizard 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You people are really great! A page is vandalised and needs some sources so what do you people do? Vote to delete it of course. Typical of what to expect from Wikipedia these days! There are many many articles that still need sources but instead of erasing the information a request for sources is posted. Ban the vandals and restore the article. Don't delete it! Dwain 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have no problem with keeping the article provided it passes WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:RS. You have five days in which to improve it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable Drmaik 19:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reason to keep. Gotta love the edit summary of one of the anon editors though: "Truth." Punkmorten 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. As always, I would be happy to revise my opinion if new evidence were produced. --ElKevbo 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Potentially speediable per {{db-attack}}. I sense that the subject may be somewhat notable from the tugs of war, however, Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V in its current form. Ohconfucius 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- non notable Labyrinth13 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, almost fails the everything test. RFerreira 06:18, 6 May 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.