Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeman Joshua-Lee


 * 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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Freeman Joshua-Lee
Non-notable bio. Google provides only one relevant-seeming link for the name. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep 78 google returns, 23 with addition of Wampum: Writer needs to make content more serious and encyclopedic, and remove "humour" such as "sometimes involving thought" and the suggestion that he has a serious role in long term strategic planning for a hemisphere.  There might be something notable there, but if article not rendered serious soon, then I would switch my vote.  Kevin McE 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 10:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, mindbendingly non-notable. I went through all of those links.  Some of them are Yahoo profiles, others are MySpace pages.  One of them seems to be a vendor page on WampumWorld.com, but there is no real content here.  I am down with the Sox jersey, but that is it.  In short, what we have is a guy with some personal webpages who makes jewelry at home, and at least once played some kind of flute on-stage, and someone took a picture.  NN in spades, and it will surprise noone to note that the page was created by Joshualeefreeman. --Deville (Talk) 14:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Ter e nce Ong [[Image:Flag of Singapore.svg|30px]] 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep hard to imagine someone being notable as "a thinker". Still, it does barely pass the google test.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per terence --He:ah? 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Any vanity page author will claim that they are "famous", but famous for what, in what context, amongst what group? I would argue that this is a clear A7. Deville has shown that the Google hits do not support the claim: anyone can create a few Yahoo and MySpace pages for themselves. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity/nn-bio; no verifiability of any actual notability or fame. MCB 06:49, 9 April 2006 (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.