Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Montgomery


 * 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. Sr13 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrea Montgomery
Notable? Neutralitytalk 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You tell us. You are supposed to have attempted to determine this yourself before nominating the article for deletion.  Please read the Guide to deletion and learn the lesson of Requests for comment/ComCat.  See also User:Uncle G/On notability.  Your nomination here, and your nominations of, , , are exceedingly poor ones.  Please improve them.  Uncle G 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of us aren't familiar with rather arcane, changing AfD rules. I've been here for a long time, and I don't think it's exactly friendly to call my nominations "exceedingly poor." Seeking consensus is important, so I try to reach it, and I don't think my formatting needs to be perfect in every case. Neutralitytalk 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I might not have said "exceedingly poor", instead substituting "inconsiderate". Ford MF 10:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Requiring that nominations be more than one-word questions, which the nominator xyrself hasn't even answered, isn't arcane, and as one can see from the date on the RFC, this isn't something that has changed. Describing your exceedingly poor nomination as exceedingly poor has nothing to do with being unfriendly.  That is a red herring.  So, too, is the claim about consensus.  After all, if you were seeking consensus, you would have stated your own opinion. Instead of correcting your exceedingly poor nomination you are now making bad excuses for it that don't hold water.  Once again:  Please improve your exceedingly poor nominations. Uncle G 09:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing is claimed, and the documentation was a myspace link. I think it would be a valid A7, and you could have safely done that, as it would still be reviewed before actual deletion.DGG 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very few Ghits and no entry in IMDb. Clarityfiend 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as contextless ghost entry with no assertion of notability. Ford MF 10:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person. Vanity bio case if only source is person's own website. Piperdown 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. What the nominator meant to say was that this article does not demonstrate any notability about the subject whatsoever, and is completely lacking in multiple non-trivial sources, and fails WP:BIO rather miserably.  RFerreira 06:34, 12 June 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.