Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl M. Cox

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

Carl M. Cox[edit]

Non-notable biography, most likely autobiographical vanity. Contains a bunch of original research, no other reliable sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a non-notable small businessman. -- Necrothesp 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising for a person. Contains no reliable references (they are not linked and who know what goes to where). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no verifiable non-trivial sources of information for notability. Warfieldian 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he may be a splendid fellow and all these "facts" may be true, but for WikiPedia we need 3rd party reliable published sources and this has no refs and no evidence of notability. Put it on his website - I'm sure researchers can find that. I also do not like the unsigned "threatening" header above. NBeale 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn. This isn't a bio so much as a blurb about the company, not the person, and it is not written preperly for an encyclopedia article. That in and of itself may not be enough to delete, but aside from that, the sources are vague, and WP:MUSIC does not apply - many of the things he wrote were only published because of his position in the company, and the same goes for his recording credits. MSJapan 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has serious issues with WP:ATT. Without citations to verify what it says much of this article has to count as Original Research. Blueboar 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the original author wants it deleted, and is repeatedly trying to blank the page. Of course that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted, but it does mean that it looks like not even the original author objects to deletion. --Delirium 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author is adamant at the start of this AfD that he wants the article kept and is now repeatedly blanking it, saying he wants it deleted. Jules1975 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But let run course. I think the originial author is mad at wikipedia and is therefore trying to leave and clean up anything they left behind. However, I feel this article is an advert for a nn company and should go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:01, 6 March 2007 (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.