Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Preece

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. Sango 123 (e) 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Preece[edit]

Delete IMDB shows an entry for 'Rachel Preece' however the wiki page itself doesn't seem to indicate a grasp of creative skills?

Vanity. There does seem to be an actress by this name, but is the actress also the "well known...creator of fine jewellery"? Rholton 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are different people. The mention of the voice artist was piggy-backed onto the article about the young jeweller. Not sure why you deleted my vanity-speedy tag when there's no particular assertion of notability, but no matter, delete it however you like. The two orphaned images don't seem to serve any purpose either. Flapdragon 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Delete per wp:Vanity. DVD+ R/W 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Author created article about self (see the page). MyNam e IsNotBob 03:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice fingernails. To the closing admin: please zap the unencyclopedic image also if this is deleted. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Gw e rnol 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Tangot a ngo 06:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, it's clearly a vanity article. However, there is no reason why a public domain image, albeit unencyclopedic, should be deleted. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ydam 11:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear a case of vanispamcruftisement as we've seen in a long time. Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of advertising. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olorin28 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 16:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also delete the image in the article. - Nick C 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom jgp 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity DannyM 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Hezzy 00:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Metromoxie 04:41, 15 May 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.