Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom King (Technologist)


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:35, December 26, 2007

Tom King (Technologist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The notability of the subject of the article is dubious and it is a frequent target of vandals. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - No sources, very little notability, most info seems made up. WP:V. Tiptoety (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for really awful mugshot. Oh yeah, unverifiable too.  Lankiveil (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete for denying asshattary award. Lankiveil (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.92.3 (talk)


 * Note - I changed/moved and the above comment due to the fact that the editor has already once voted, and or was made by a anon IP. Tiptoety (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Being a persistent target of vandals is not a valid deletion rationale, but the lack of notability of the subject renders that point moot. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Also parts read like thinly veiled attacks.  Benea (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:21, 25 December 2007 (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.