Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Owenhouse


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jay Owenhouse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This autobiography has one source, an interview in a Shanghai magazine. That the creator has been entertaining himself with an earlier account vandalizing David Copperfield (illusionist) is sort of funny, but not strictly relevant. I didn't find any other sources that would allow me to expand an article about Owenhouse; does anyone else have better luck? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: In light of, , , and , I don't even think this article deserves the benefit of the doubt. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Ooo, I didn't see Misteredit before. He's been a busy little beaver, hasn't he? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete even though he has added to the list of accounts. Wikieditor06 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. The article should not be deleted only because of the bad behavior of its writer, but only if Jay Owenhouse himself does not meet the notability criteria.  Which, er, I couldn't find much evidence of, since none of his many sockpuppets have done much in the way of adding useful sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Note.  Of course; my vote was solely because the article did not meet notability requirements, and I found no other sources either. I just found it a little amusing the number of attempts he made to keep his two sentence-long page. Wikieditor06 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I nominated it for speedy deletion based on the fact that after googling, I didn't feel it met the criteria for inclusion. At this point I'm still inclined to believe that Jay Owenhouse does not merit an article on Wikipedia. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:52, 30 June 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.