Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik michaels

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 was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erik michaels

Erik michaels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Sourceless; seems like a hoax Od Mishehu 13:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's been deleted once already, subject lacks sufficient notability (even his book turns up zero relevant GHits outside of Wikipedia), and there are WP:BLP issues from start to finish. ~Matticus TC 14:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above --NeilN 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete either a joke or bad attempt at self-promotion. Jmm6f488 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this can qualify for an A7. Spellcast 15:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No claim of notability, other than a (possibly self-admitted) failed book.--Sethacus 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above uses. The surname is not even capitalized. James Luftan contribs 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete could be a hoax or a prank page, but certainly not notable. Hut 8.5 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, smells hoax-y. Realkyhick 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: per G10, probable attack page.  RGTraynor  17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for oh so many reasons: Notability, self promotion, lack of references, questionable intent, etc. Ariel♥Gold 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per everything said above. — Wenli (contribs) 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above.--JForget 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy delete - if you think it's a hoax, and it's a living person, and its content is racy, it must be deleted immediately, no? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence that it does refer to a real living person. DGG (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It does no harm to presume it does and speedy it, however in error. The contrary isn't the case.  RGTraynor  13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
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.