Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gleeson

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 deleted by User:Philippe as nonsense. Shalom Hello 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Gleeson

Paul Gleeson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

References are missing. High on a tree 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete as nom Sawblade05 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Missing references isn't a reason for deletion. This guy's IMDb profile suggests that he's very notable, having been a part of several notable films. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or rewrite from scratch. Pure nonsense, even though its subject is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • They aren't the same subject. They're two different people with the same name. Assuming the nonsense person actually in some way exists. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but much cleanup is needed. NW036 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Article is pure nonsense - "He is the only surviving child of Keanu Charles Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss" and the filmography is completely wrong. I think this is a joke Corpx 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as complete nonsense. Yes, there are indeed a couple of Paul Gleesons on IMDB, but their vitae curriculae and this quasi-hoax of an article match up in no particular, from the film lists to being Keanu Reeves' and Carrie-Anne Moss' love child to being credited with conjectural movies and an erroneous date of birth. The fact that the creator created the article with NPOV and the tone tags is mindboggling enough, and all that took out just a couple minutes to suss out. Before anyone else proposes keeping this, could they take a look at the background first, please?  RGTraynor  17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - absolute nonsense already described. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - hoax article. StudierMalMarburg 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I got through the first two sentences, and that was all I needed. Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:23, 23 July 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.