Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Stone

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. Joyous 00:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Stone

I found this article while researching Roy LeRoi because I was considering nominating it for VFD. One of the IP address that worked on the Roy LeRoi page also worked on Phil Stone.

The Phil Stone article purports that he is a journalist, yet when I went to his homepage there is only one article. Needless to say that Phil Stone does not merit an article in the Wikipedia. Kevin Rector 04:31, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

• If you have a mind to put those other articles on vfd I say go for it. Administrators are a lazy, unreliable bunch -- if you leave that sort of work to administrators, chances are it will never get done. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This Phil Stone doesn't establish notability in his Geocities personal website, looks like a vanity article. However, What links here shows the existence of another Phil Stone, member of The Hub, who might be worthy of his own article. JoaoRicardo 06:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP You sound like a conspiracy theorist! I started the article on Phil Stone after discovering his website after I received an e-mail newsletter. Erase any information that is not true, but to accuse me of being part of some huge conspiracy to advertise some unknown people is a little nutty don't you think? David 20:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote actually by User:Timothy001, original author of Phil Stone. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Why did you make this statement? I say right in my comment that I originated the article. Why do I feel you are implying something? I have done nothing wrong. Is it that one technonerd is defending another? David Timothy001 00:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He does not appear to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies yet. (A google search for "Phil Stone" returned 7870 hits but none in the first few pages appeared to be this person. It's hard to interpret, though, with such a common name.) By the way, there is no better forum for the nomination of the other articles you found, Kevin. The right answer is, unfortunately, to nominate them here individually if you believe they are deletable. Rossami (talk) 21:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it isn't vanity because it's not written by him, it's indistinguishable from vanity, and just as bad. -R. fiend 22:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and from looking at the other mentioned articles, I concur that most are VfD fodder too. -R. fiend 22:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete Dwain 22:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Those I was hesitant on. I think Janet, Roy, and The Man in the Movie, at least are deletable. -R. fiend 23:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable enough, possible vanity/promo. Megan1967 01:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 19:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Edeans 07:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable -Willmcw 23:33, 2 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.