Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier Dominguez (0th nomination)

It's back, with the same old copied-and-pasted content, even after the community's consensus was to delete the article (the old discussion is below.) Evidently, User:205.188.117.20 thinks we have short memories, or that his article has some God-given right to exist? --Ardonik 02:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion starts here.

Pier Dominguez was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Stupid, shallow ad for this guy's website. I've deactivated the link. A google search (28 hits) reveals that this guy has been spamming every online encyclopedia that he can edit. Interesting thing is, the page has been edited and re-edited for about a year, and nobody's considered deleting it. --Ardonik 06:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good thing you caught it. These vanity listings really steam me.  Delete ASAP as this has been clogging up server space long enough. - Lucky 6.9 06:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if that is all he has done - writing celebrity books doesn't make him notable in itself. Delete. Secretlondon 06:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. This does not add any significant value.  Delete.  -SocratesJedi 09:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If he's written real books that actually made money (is this confirmed or just asserted?), he's worth an article, though with severe rewriting. No vote yet - David Gerard 12:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The action is advertising. The article is an ad.  Delete on those grounds -- no stance taken on notability. Geogre 15:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, following Geogre's reasoning. -- orthogonal 02:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Geogre. Thue | talk 11:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this spam.   &mdash; Chameleon My page/My talk 13:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs major NPOV rewrite. I find these brief vignettes of the barely notable to be fascinating. I see no harm in keeping them, an online encyclopedia is the perfect place for them. Arevich 03:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Vanity&mdash;delete with extreme prejudice. Postdlf 14:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the entry "Pier Dominguez". I found it to be a portal to many interesting true crime facts, and it is true that he's an author. What harm does it do? I say keep it.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * More proxy by hosiery. Sorry, no unsigned votes. - Lucky 6.9 07:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion ends here.

Put new discussion here.


 * Since it lost VfD, doesn't it go straight to speedy delete if it shows up again? Geogre 02:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep. It's gone.  RickK 05:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed this article again. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)