Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phoeron


 * 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 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Phoeron


Non-notable personality, fails WP:V, WP:BIO Shrieking Harpy. . . . . .      TalkundefinedCount 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability assertion. Guys only been on the music scence for a year. scope_creep

I am notable enough. I have had reviews published in SOD Magazine, Terrorizer, and SpaceJunkies.net. And that's two years, Scope Creep. Phoeron 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, I've had articles published at the Washington Post, for Time Magazine, and in two books of poetry I've published, but I feel it's the very height of surfeited self-fluffery to make an article about myself. The last person who should determine you are notable is you. Please provide independant sources asserting your notability.K thx bye. -- Shrieking Harpy  . . . . . .       TalkundefinedCount 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Swpb 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Flagrant WP:COI, fails WP:BIO.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Resolute 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Vanity boosterism page. Robovski 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-admitted conflict of interest. MER-C 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm at least as notable as this fellow, which is to say, that he's not very notable at all. Lankiveil 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Strong and Speedy Delete - walks all over WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:V and notability - seems to be self-penned self-promotion. Pete Fenelon 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken the time to read over Wikipedia policy, and I have to agree now, that this article should be deleted for the reasons given above. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. Phoeron 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator, subject of article agrees to this as well so perhaps speedy delete. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 14 November 2006


 * 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.