Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio Fox
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 of the debate was Speedy delete per author's request--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion with this note: "CSD A7 - Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. Author admits to being the owner of said "company" (read userpage), and does nothing to assert notability in article." This is not according to my interpretation of policy a speedy criterion, though it certainly is a valid deletion criterion. Listing here for review. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Richardcavell 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not agree more. Wikipedia is not a blog. --Alphachimp talk 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. CSD A7 permits speedy deletion of blatent vanity pages with no assertion of notability, hence my tagging it as such. You do need to AfD if the vanity of the article is disputed at all, but the author did not offer anything that may be construed as a sign of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to have clarification about whether corporations could be included. I did delete a dog under A7 not long ago, but people seem to get pissed off if you interpret it too liberally. Chick Bowen 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, makes sense. I don't know if this even counts as a corporation, but I understand where you're coming from. I'll go a little heavier on the AfD nominating, even though it is a bit of a pain :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to have clarification about whether corporations could be included. I did delete a dog under A7 not long ago, but people seem to get pissed off if you interpret it too liberally. Chick Bowen 04:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity blog posts. RobLinwood 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--blue520 11:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Alphachimp. Kevin 11:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, vanity, nn. --Terence Ong 12:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.