Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Barrington

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Barrington

Article appears to be complete fiction, fails notability guidelines for bios, or a combination of the two. Google test turns up nothing, so is probably unverifiable also. Entertaining article, though. kotra 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are 81 references to Felicity Barrington on Google. Of these 81 references, I have isolated fourteen separate people, none of them are notable and none of them seem to be the person that is mentioned in the article. Trusilver 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "In December 2007...." I've never seen a bio violate WP:CRYSTAL before. Or shall we wait until then in case it's verifiable? --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (First time I have seen the prophecy tag.) However, even if everything described came true exactly as the article predicts, would the subject meet notability requirements? (Unless the subject thinks of patenting the "trebuche bungeeing" concept, which sounds like fun.) I think this is probably a speedy delete candidate FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is that trebuchet bungeeing? Clarityfiend 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible, per all above comments. When an article starts discussing multiple future events as if they were the past, that should be a sign that it does not meet Wikipedia's needs, and in this case is a sign that the article is patent nonsense. --Metropolitan90 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - what the? Kripto 01:40, 30 June 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.