Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Gittens


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaun Gittens, Jack Steer
Prods removed without comment. Supposed 17-year-old footballer for Scunthorpe United F.C., and another for Cardiff/Wycombe, who totally fail google search. Since anyone who ever takes the field once shows up in dozens of footballer sites, looks like hoax. Author name makes this look like vanity. Fan-1967 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note Author has just bought a 24-hour block for a round of blatant vandalism on other articles and user pages, so will be temporarily unable to defend these contributions. Fan-1967 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete almost certainly hoaxes (no mention of either via Google, for example). Even if they are not, they lack sources so are unverifiable and are certainly not notable. Gwernol 14:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as non-notable (and probable hoax). Article creator has been blocked for repeated vandalism and shares name with the subject of the first article. Geoffrey Spear 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but oppose early closing as such; considering the author's block, it would be unnecessary biting. Letting this run its full course costs us little and can only make better any situation which may arise with these articles or this contributor down the road, be it DRV, CSD under G4, or discussion with the user after the block expires.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. Hoax is not a speedy category, and a future need for G4 seems not improbable. Fan-1967 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unverifiable, lacks of sources, and no assertion of notability. Very unlikely to be real and notable. --Ter e nce Ong (C 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 22 November 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.