Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Gomez


 * 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. nn bio. -- + + Lar: t/c 05:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Joe Gomez
NN standup comedian. 0 Google hits for Joseph Jarod Gomez, 80 for "Joe Gomez" standup and 35 for "Joseph Gomez" standup. Many wikilinks point to the article, but note that the article creator has recently added (spam?) links to this article all over the place. In addition he seems to share the name with a wrestler etc. Punkmorten 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No DeleteAppears in several Archives under Doug Stanhope.  Appears to be legitamet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricktorn (talk • contribs).
 * This is the article creator, if anyone was in doubt :) --Punkmorten 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm trying to defend it's right to be here, having signed the aforementioned.Ricktorn
 * Weak Delete note the concerns of nom but also the links to article --manchesterstudent 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The hype seems created by the article's author so far. Danny Lilithborne 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Sdedeo (tips) 23:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep in this case, verifiable legitimacy is determined by the presence of a figure within his or her respective field insofar as that presence is discussed in the article itself, not said figure's presence within that field as represented in a search performed on yahoo! or any other such drag of mainstream domain. a verifiable presence within an artist's respective field, to all intents and purposes, then, remains a highly subjective evaluation; unfortunately, it may very well be up to the article's creator, ultimately, to determine the ultimate legitimacy of all content within the article in question, including but not limited to the article's subject. as the submission policy is currently written, the creator assumes all [forms of] liability for the information contained within the article -- unless the creator is found to be in violation of copyright law as presented to the creator under the policies of the site, or has submitted something libelous to which an outside party to this discussion can later make a claim after having witnessed the article in question, there doesn't appear to be a case for its deletion. --Brandon8ter 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment First edit from brand new user. Fan1967 00:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn, unverifiable. Editor's rather interesting legalistic statement, sort of, kind of, taking responsibility for the material, does not mean Wikipedia ignores its standards. Fan1967 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nonnotable and unverifyable. vanispam - Peripitus (Talk) 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely, utterly non-notable, and the article is borderline nonsense. -- Kicking222 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notwithstanding any other principles, all articles must be verifiable, and the burden of proof for verification is on the editors who want to keep the article. --Metropolitan90 02:25, 5 June 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.