Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy odom
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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Christy odom[edit]
For some reason, this was XD2'd. Since an admin opted not to delete it, and it includes what are surely assertions of note, I suppose it should come here. Be careful what you believe...and what you can WP:Vify. -Splashtalk 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it because it's pretty obvious vanity, in my opinion. If that's not OK, perhaps userfying would be appropriate? I'm not sure why it should come here, but then again I was perfectly content to leave it deleted with XD2. Friday (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't delete it, and XD2 is just blanking, not deleting. That's the trouble. I can speedy it if you like since I don't actually believe a word it says, although I didn't Google it yet.-Splashtalk 23:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should have been more clear. I "deleted" it (via XD2) because it was vanity. Since it did try to claim notability and there was potential for disagreement, I thought XD2 was a good solution. More transparent than a speedy, easier and less broken than Afd. I don't see that it does any harm, sitting there XD2'd and not linked, but some folks consider that "messy". I've no objection to hard-deleting it. The user who created it (User:Odom) was logged in, but that was the only activity on that account. As for the content, it's even possible that some of what's here is true, but it's fluffed up to make it sound more important than it really is. Friday (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't delete it, and XD2 is just blanking, not deleting. That's the trouble. I can speedy it if you like since I don't actually believe a word it says, although I didn't Google it yet.-Splashtalk 23:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete .. as written there is no context for the assertions of notabililty. No references, unable to find any info except to verify that subject is a web designer. ERcheck 00:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN --Rogerd 18:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete vanity Pete.Hurd 02:56, 26 November 2005 (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.