Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saintstephen


 * 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 speedy delete A7 + G10 + G1 + IAR. Luna Santin 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Saintstephen


Not notable or verifiable. Could not verify existence of his books. Leibniz 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Either this guy's totally unknown or doesn't exist at all. Absolutely nothing here is verifiable. Fan-1967 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not verifiable, and if it was, not notable. Hello32020 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * I am quite verifiable, as are the slight accomplishments included in the wiki entry here referred. All of my books on this topic are currently available. I am arguably notable, as evidenced by a lifetime of dedication to the philosophies referenced within the wiki entry. And, I exist quite nicely, thank you.
 * However, upon review of the Wiki guidelines per entries of the sort under consideration, it is understandable that adjustments might be made. I might add that upon perusal of pages of this sort for comparison, I found mine fraught with far less of the  self-aggrandizement and project-hyping so often found in vanity-type pages.
 * Thank you for your time keeping wiki nice and scrubbed, although as regards this occult topic, I might advise deeper research.
 * Thanks,
 * s
 * The wheel turns. All is grist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs)  — Quadmona (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Saying you are verifiable is very nice. Can you provide any Reliable Sources to back up the assertion? We have been unable to find anything. Fan-1967 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vanity. As if it wasn't bad enough already. Leibniz 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Add vandalism. He just removed this AFD from the daily log. Fan-1967 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That was fast!

Again and understand, wiki is not my "thing", and i claim no vested interest in this matter. I, "saintstephen", have basically been having fun with the opensource nature of the database, posting absolute facts as regards my life. Specifically, my life in the Black Magick Community. And why not. In this specific arena, I have few peers.

Out of habitual curiosity i went to the reliable source link offered and scanned the guidelines, quickly, regarding scholerly research and the like. It would seem that deletion, or amendment, could be appropo, even though thousands others are aware of various established facts within the short bio.

I, again, have no personal interest in supporting the facts further.

Have at it. We suckle at the teat of half a`dozen ivory towers.

Oh. Sorry about the snip AFD from the daily log or whatever. i dont even know what the hell that thing is. it looked like a demon at the gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs)


 * Strong delete. I think the page's own statement "All saintstephen will ever really be known for was coining the phrase:" followed by a phrase with zero ghits beyond this wiki page itself (and a mirror of it) pretty much sums up this completely WP:NN WP:BIO. DMacks 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. It is pointless, vile, and borders on subversive.

delete now.


 * 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.