Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter D. Petrovic

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. CSTAR 01:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Walter D. Petrovic
This is an article about a non-notable person, possible vanity. Rje 04:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete Non-sourced. Paul August &#9742; 04:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. I love the quote: "Above is first-hand information obtained from Walter D. Petrovic himself.". Zzyzx11 04:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious vanity. --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 07:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unpublished author, no other claim to notability. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 07:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, I'm torn. I can't actually vouch for notability here, because I can't find a damn thing on either Google or Amazon to support it, and yet just seeing his name in the VfD contents list immediately pinged my internal "hey! Canadian writer!" alarm. I don't know if I'm psychic, or missing something somewhere. (My late response is attributable not to a delayed reaction, but to the fact that I simply didn't see it before. This was my first serious scan of VfD topics in a couple of weeks; my VfD activity lately has been restricted to topics that got posted to the Canadian discussion board by other people.) Could we please withhold deletion for one more day so I can ask the Canucks for input? Bearcat 08:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like nobody's weighed in...go ahead and delete. If I come across later proof that my response was factually warranted and not just a weird coincidental hunch, I can always recreate the article with a better explanation of notability. Bearcat 22:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)