Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin S. C. Filiberto


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Franklin S. C. Filiberto

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Appears to just be an autobiographical resume. PROD declined by author - no reasons given. Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete no claim of notability -Drdisque (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: CSD needs more than a generic notable flag, but in no way do I think that means the article should kept in its current state. With no resources or links whatsoever it's impossible to even evaluate under any normal notability or verification standard, and looks like a direct copy of text from elsewhere that read like WP:BIO concerns. The same text is actually on the user's namespace and has been edited there several times. That the user's talk page it titled a highly "suspicious" name if you compare with the article is a bit of icing on the cake. In all seriousness, user has been appropriately warned several times on his talkpage with the only adjustment to the article being the removal of PROD tag without reason given in the edit summary. Short of something dull to say, I'm going to drag a pile of policies around and plow them under one heap of WP:DUCK. Datheisen (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Actually, it does meet one of the CSD criteria, A7. Fer cryin' out loud, there's nothing here that even remotely asserts notability&mdash;an article like this would be perfectly suitable for Wikipopuli, but it doesn't belong here. &mdash;Smeazel (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2009 (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.