Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferguson and Erickson

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. I'll close this early owing to the WP:BLP concerns and per WP:SNOW. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson and Erickson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fails WP:BLP1E by a wide margin and also the content is so far from Wiki standards that I do not believe it can be saved in any form. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete for BLP's sake. Clear BLP1E article. The tone is not encyclopedic, the formatting is a mess, there is a single reference for the whole article. لennavecia 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - should really be snowball deleted because it is a quite serious violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per reasons given, this article needs to not be here. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. The faster this is gone the better.--Talain (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pretty obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per nom. Unworthy encyclopaedia article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I'm fairly certain this is also plagiarised (like most of the articles from this user appear to be), but have not been able to find the source. Leaving the issue of plagliarism/copyvio aside, though, I agree this article fails BLP, verifiability and NPOV. Sarah 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Brian Reading (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.