Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Stocker
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 speedily deleted as WP:CSD A7 non-notable bio. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nick Stocker
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Why is this AfD? Should be speedy delete - not notable. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- The only sign of notability is "he was known as a world known peace keeper". Because of this sign of notability, probably it is not a candidate of speedy. But the claim is unverifiable, so AfD is the right place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at the edit history of the author. How could you possibly accept this "peace keeper" rubbish as a rational claim? WWGB (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, yeah, you are right here. I missed the author's edit history. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look at the edit history of the author. How could you possibly accept this "peace keeper" rubbish as a rational claim? WWGB (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The only sign of notability is "he was known as a world known peace keeper". Because of this sign of notability, probably it is not a candidate of speedy. But the claim is unverifiable, so AfD is the right place. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (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.
