Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rummel Pinera

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rummel Pinera

Contested prod. This guy doesn't look notable enough for an article. He gets 13 unique google hits which all appear to derive from the guy himself. Relevant guideline is WP:BIO. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• See also an apparently related deletion of RUMMEL PINERA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RUMMEL PINERA. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• I have put up another page which apparently was created to support the neologism. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_Abrogationism.

• Keep - read some books google cant be only source and grade of notability. Luka Jačov 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand that. But the article doesn't support notability thru other works either. I don't mean to imply Google is everything, but rather that since the article didn't convince me of his notability, I gave Google a shot. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have some evidence of his notability? I just can't seem to verify that other people think this highly of him. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN and possible copyvio. Grafikm_fr 17:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be an add for a self published book. NN + Vanity page + incomprehensible prose. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has already been deleted once under a similar name. Does that make it speedyable? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if the content itself is basically the same. And I can't view deleted pages, so I wouldn't know. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like self-promotion. Golfcam 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other AfD. Fagstein 05:55, 19 April 2006 (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.