Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Fortuny


 * 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 per pretty much insurmountable WP:BLP concerns. Guy 09:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny
This page is problematic for many reasons. Right now it is poorly referenced, partially POV and original research and has problems with the rules covering biographies of living persons, but mostly the guy is just not notable. A search for gets only 115 hits and only 32 judged as unique by Google. Only 3 hits on google news is really pathetic for something claiming to be a current event, and of those 2 are from blog-columns rather than traditional newspaper columns. Maybe there will be some future reprecusions and interest, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and right now I don't see where this event/person merits encyclopedia coverage. Better just to eliminate a problematic article about a non-event. Delete. Dragons flight 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. And brace yourselves for the forthcoming parade of meatpuppets. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agreed. The article is going to serve as nothing more than troll-bait. He's notable only in the sense that he has brought out a potential legal issue. In that respect, it might be conceivable to give him a short mention in Privacy, but nothing more than that. alpha Chimp (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Alphachimp. -- ArglebargleIV 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All the citations are from blogs and forums. No Reliable Sources. Wikipedia is not for documenting the blog topic of the week. Fan-1967 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Being a sleazebag and possible sociopath does not mean you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, unless there have been some changes to WP:BIO that I do not know about. -- Kjkolb 09:38, 10 September 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.