Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topher Villafane

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 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topher Villafane

Topher Villafane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

His main claim to fame is being the head of an unremarkable production company. None of the claims in this article can be verified by reliable sources. Searching for his name and any of his movies yields MySpaces. I'm also nominating a few other related articles because meatpuppets kept removing the speedy templates and I'd like to deal with this Wiki-empire in one fell swoop. --Bongwarrior 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

HollyWood East (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Christopher Villafane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (redirect page)

Charlotte Gillis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete them all I speedied Charlotte Gillis last night as an A7, no assertation of notability and I still stand by that since the only references to her fame are MySpace and the blog of a local newspaper, not the actual newspaper itself. I just deleted HollyWood East (2006 film) since it was a duplicate article of HollyWood East. Make it go away. Keegan^talk 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I put up the "Charlotte" page, I made edits to the "Topher" page and I feel the whole "dealing with the wiki-empire" is unwarranted. The Topher page had been looked at by another administrator and they had no problem with it other than one link that has been since removed. I am in the process, of getting the links for "more notable sources" and I have attempted to convey that. But instead because of someones problem with one of the pages. They are trying to take them all down "in one fell swoop". I removed the "Charlotte" page (as best I could). The other two I am waiting for the link that I need to post. Please take this into consideration. I am new to wikipedia and I am trying. I am not the submitter of all of them, but I am knowledgable on the subjects, so I am going to take the responsibility of fixing them to wikipedias liking.--Lailajames 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Lailajames. The issue is with the notability of the subjects. We are an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminant collection of information. The result of this is not eveyone who has done something merits inclusion into this project. We welcome new articles, but there are ideas behind what we're doing here. There are not reliable sources going to the verification of notability. At present time, I fail to see how this can change. If the subjects of the deletion nomination are successful in a significant way in the future, then we can have articles on them. Keegan^talk 07:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete alll. If nothing else for blatant sock puppetry. -- RHaworth 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have other links to publish but I am awaiting to recieve them from another party, so they can all be added to the page in question in one fell swoop --Lailajames 14:10, 25 August 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.