Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kowalysko


 * 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.  Sango 123  23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Kowalysko
I may be wrong, but 53 hits on google does not justify notability. 11kowrom 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD was started not much more than ONE HOUR after the article appeared. I am abstaining from voting, but I'm wondering if the author's working on this and just not as fast as some other editors are. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how slow he is. The word "Kowalysko" by itself only returns 146 Google hits, and I'm sure that not all of them are relevant to this guy. Slow writing does not excuse making non-encyclopedic articles. Delete - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Google hits aren't official Wiki policy... THIS is. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to bite anyone, and I'm sorry if it looked like I was. What I was doing was refuting your argument that the article may be up for deletion because of a slow-working editor. My point was that that point is irrelevant, because the subject is non-notable, which is why it's up for deletion. - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, Che. I just don't like this phenomenon I've noticed of articles being tagged anywhere from one to five minutes after they're posted. I've certainly learned that if I want to put up an article, I should have it completely finished before I post it. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Fabricationary 23:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Dionyseus 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I counted 22 Google hits, one of which verified part of this article (that the subject filed a complaint against a stockbroker for unauthorized trading in his account). But the article doesn't indicate that he was ever well-known for that, so he does not meet any guidelines at WP:BIO. Nor does being an extra in a movie contribute to notability; he isn't listed in the Internet Movie Database, and IMDb doesn't accept entries for people whose only roles were uncredited extra parts anyway . --Metropolitan90 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has actually been nominated for deletion. In my opinion, this article is non-notable also. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:34, 13 July 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.