Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond C. Lemme

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 speedy delete, no assertion of notability, being used for trolling. Nandesuka 11:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond C. Lemme[edit]

No evidence of notability. Appears to be a minor player in a minor conspiracy theory which is contested from the low amount of google hits.[1] Crossmr 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been the subject of a flurry of activity in the past few hours, none of it constructive. I get a huge amount of Google hits personally, you must be on a different data centre.--Pussy Galore 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The search is very clear and performed with the normal standards of any google search on an individual. There are a total of 23 unique hits, with the first hit being this article, and the 12th hit being the wikipedia catagory he appears on. There is no other "data center" if you're getting so many hits provide a link to the search. You continually claim you've got evidence of notability, provide it.--Crossmr 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I beleieve google employ around a dozen Data centres around the globe, so as to be able to return localised results to users. In short, your Google results in the US, are different to my Google results in the UK. Of course, if I were sensible, I would just use Scroogle instead. --Pussy Galore 03:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And again you've failed to provide any alleged information you claim to have.--Crossmr 03:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm, you might want to actually check out the article page, which I've spending the last half an hour improving. How have you improved it in the last half an hour?--Pussy Galore 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen your changes, I see no improvement. A bunch of unverified claims. Its not my job to improve the article. You seem so desperate to have this thing kept, yet so unwilling to actually provide any reasoning to do so.--Crossmr 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, [2], UK search results for the same term. No difference.--Crossmr 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for thoroughness (banned link removed) scroogle, I see no additionaly notability there, no huge amount of hits you claim.--Crossmr 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where did I claim that? And Isn't Scroogle limited to returning 100 results, so as to save on server bandwith? --Pussy Galore 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You claimed it directly above I get a huge amount of Google hits personally,. Scroogle does limit to 100, but that tops out at 24, it doesn't even begin to approach the limit. So no, there is no way you get a huge amount of google hits.--Crossmr 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Enough of this. Do you have a link or not? No more dodging the issue. Provide a decent link with your next post or simply don't bother posting at all. Round-about arguments will only get your article deleted all the quicker, as it proves you have no real information to show us. As for your assertions on "data centers", that's total nonsense. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so long as this remains little more than two sentences. If it can be expanded to a point where I can care who this guy was, then I might vote keep. As it stands, it doesn't assert why this guy needs an article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone expanded it. Delete for now as the article is unclear about the purported significance of this fellow. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Speedy/Strong Delete - There's no claim to notability here beyond insinuation. He has few unique Google hits, and is unencyclopedic to the extreme. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is not the place to speculate on the possibility that he might have been involved in something other than the official cause of death and so on. -- Chabuk 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys argue here all you want. I'm going to be spending my time improving the article. --Pussy Galore 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT. --Peta 05:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - I have updated and clarified article and added links to popular sources on Mr. Lemme. --MaxContent 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a huge shame we can't have lots more articles about people who briefly received some attention among some blogs. But this will never come anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO. My Alt Account 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet wp bio ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:08, 12 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.