Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konigsmark Upgrade

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Konigsmark Upgrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Author contends that his material is being stolen and is writing this article to protect it. But I can't find any hits for this on Google--why can't such obvious hoaxes be speedied? Blueboy96 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The reason hoaxes can't be speedied is that in rare cases, they turn out to be true. This isn't one of those cases. Zero google hits = unverifiable. YechielMan 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Vanity / "original research" by user:Andykonigsmark. -- RHaworth 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete pathetic vanity that is, also, poorly written. 65.241.15.131 01:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I realize that you gentlemen want to protect the integrity of wikipedia, but I am a comedian and I am trying to protect my material. You can view my material at my comedy page at www.myspace.com/andykonigsmark

• Yet another reason to delete this--as much as I agree with his intentions, this article fails WP:NOT.Blueboy96 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Why is this even here? Closenplay 00:57, 4 June 2007 (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.