Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Vyka

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 (G11) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Vyka[edit]

Nonnotable politician writing his own article in an overly promotional manner. No references for verification outside Myspace. Vanispamcruftisement. Perhaps the only Gubernatorial candidate to recieve zero hits on Google news. Themfromspace (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: an obvious one --Kickstart70TC 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy A7 was denied so I took it to AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Although generally anyone running for a high profile public office would have notability, I can't find one reliable source that even states he is running for office (Myspace is not a RS). Delete, per WP:RS or lack thereof. Digital ^Ninja 22:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't ever see a day when you can speedy delete a political candidate, too much potential for abuse. In this case, it would seem that since he has had no significant coverage, so AFD is the right place anyway. He is is seeking the nomination of the Republican Party in 2010, so maybe between now and then he will get notable. But he's not today. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted Contrary to Pharmboy's claim, I believe that this was a fine candidate for deletion as G11, blatant advertising: as noted by the nominator, this was apparently written by the candidate, and as such there was no advertising-free version to which we could revert. No question that this guy passed A7, but that's not the only criterion for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (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.