Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Smilek


 * 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. -Docg 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Smilek

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nom and vote... Del on this promotional-toned bio of non-notable figure. With all hits displayed, G-Test is
 * 12 of 12 for "Fred Smilek" OR "Fred J Smilek "

with, BTW, at least 2 purporting to concern "prohibitions" imposed by 2 different Federal finance-related agencies. Jerzy•t 07:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In the absense of any sources in the article, my research says it's so non-notable I can't tell if the subject and content are simply obscure, or made up. CiaranG 09:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as very strange WP:OR. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion or sources available to indicate notability. Doesn't even come close to any of the criterion on WP:BIO. James086   Talk  00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This information is NOT fiction. The information about this person is all fact.I did some research on articles of incorporation and a background check and everything that has been stated is current and real. [WP:BIO]]. James086   Talk  00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)  Contrary to the above forged sig, this contrib (now de-shouted) is by User:72.156.48.177 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTM)
 * The nom is based on non-notability, so mentioning WP:BIO without offering evidence of notability is confusing at best.
 * Even tho
 * illogical votes are routinely deprecated by AfD callers,
 * so are votes by newcomers, and
 * it's hard to imagine what in incorp papers could establish notability,
 * it could be interesting to hear why you expect us to take seriously the claim of an anonymous, one-edit 'Net user that "I have in my hand..." documents whose contents we can't quite make out at this distance. --Jerzy•t 20:24, 29 January 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.