Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Firehammer

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 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reginald Firehammer

Reginald Firehammer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is mostly unverifiable, a single non-independent source is cited and no secondary sources are cited at all. The article does not read as very NPOV, in fact I would say that it is very skewed towards the topics POV. The page is also an orphan. Parasite 05:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete - as his notability is supposed to be a result of his philosophy, but the article provides no proof of his notability from reputable, serious journals. If we keep this, then every basement thinker will deserve their own page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

comment - I have now added a link in the article to a book he wrote. I still don't think he's notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC

• Delete The claimed book is self-published,. No indication of outside notice whatsoever. DGG 23:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment IMHO, more important than the lack of notability (if you buy into that concept) is the lack of references. Parasite 22:36, 3 April 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.