Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Garret
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 was delete. StarM 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerry Garret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not world-renowned (due to Google test and personal experience as an amateur VB programmer). Speedy declined as spurious claim of significance was enough to pass A7. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--yes, the claim of notability is there, but no evidence whatsoever. And I have to go and delete a line or two, given the enormous peacock-quality of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After deleting unverifiable and unencyclopedic stuff, there's nothing left--certainly nothing of notability. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'd argue that an obviously spurious claim of notability is the same as no claim at all, and that the speedy should have stood. Reyk YO! 04:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Too often claims are considered spurious by people who are too lazy to do some work and look up sources. (Not saying you are one of them) Also, newpage patrollers who speedy tag pages often are prone to make mistakes here, especially if the subject is not in their field of expertise. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the crux is "obviously" spurious. I'd rather keep at speedy stage an article with a claim that may prove to be correct. Especially because I then always prompt the speedy tagger to proceed to AfD where claims can be investigated. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Too often claims are considered spurious by people who are too lazy to do some work and look up sources. (Not saying you are one of them) Also, newpage patrollers who speedy tag pages often are prone to make mistakes here, especially if the subject is not in their field of expertise. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not show why he's a note-worthy programmer. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No current evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2008 (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.