Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Douglas (librarian)
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. NawlinWiki 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Douglas (librarian)[edit]
Vanity; non-notable; apparently set up to fulfill a violation of WP:POINT, here.
- Delete per above. --John Hubbard 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what's the reasoning? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added above --John Hubbard 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As much as I enjoy his online writings, he's really not a notable figure. It would be nice if this page had been semi-protected as opposed to fully... GassyGuy 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That weblink from the nominator says it all. 129.98.212.67 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as above, and possible speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I admit to being amused. But, though the initial page was obviously a prank, he does turn out to be a published author with quite a few published articles. So, if he really wants a entry, he does seem to have some evidence to be evaluated in favor of it. Granted, it's not strong, but it's nonzero -- Seth Finkelstein 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:POINT violation, as shown in the nominator's link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WP:Sandbox! :) Xtifr tälk 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Douglas makes it clear that he wants other to vandalize the page. Delete and protect it from recreation. Koweja 23:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is hilarious, but wrong. - Lex 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough people are certainly interested in the entry...I say put a semi-protection on it, and keep it, or redirect it to an entry on McSweeney's Internet Tendencies.
- 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.