Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertie Stephens

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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Stephens[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

NN person, fails WP:BIO. Sparse IMDB entry of little note, and not impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. FYI: this may be part of a walled garden, see the AfD on Daniel M. Shirley and others. Agent 86 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blood red sandman 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Says not an impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. Well i Know of Bertie and searched finding bar 1 every result was related to him for first few pages. He's not just a filmaker which is probably the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs)
Keep All As above (bar knowing him), plus it seems bio appears on more than Imdb as listed for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.6.78 (talk • contribs)
Keep All Not quite sure how this is against the rules as I found the infomation on the internet and is clearly not promoting someone, but maybe I don't know all the rules User:JamesFarington
Comment It appears that the previous three comments are all from single purpose accounts that have edited nothing but this and the other articles forming part of the walled garden. Agent 86 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:38, 6 September 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.