Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number1hater

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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly a job for cleanup but it appears to be vanity. After numerous edits it still has horrible grammar/spelling and claims seem exaggerated Tombom23 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup - somewhat notable, but NPOV article necessary. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as spurious NN vanity. "Somewhat notable?" Upon what grounds? His personal webpage (of which he claims gets two million hits a month) has an Alexa rank of 597,000 [1]. His moniker turns up 114 unique G-hits [2]; the overwhelming number of those are from his personal Yahoo group and his Myspace page, and the lead hit of which is this Wikipedia article. He does not, contrary to assertions, appear in the May issue of Blender Magazine. No hits come off the alleged MTV connection. RGTraynor 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot verify any of the big claims in this article. This seems very problematic. Not the MTV Made (outside of his sites,) not the number of MySpace friends (it doesn't show that on his profile,) NOTHING. Grandmasterka 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Would be notable if any of it were true, but this is another kid with a MySpace account.--Isotope23 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Very Strong delete"- There is absolutely no proof whatsoever about any of his claims. This page was obviously written by him, and based on these facts, I would suggest that makes a case for vanity.
• Delete. I also agree that this page is a vanity and is in need of sources for the claims. If they cannot be provided (and it seems as if others have looked) the page should be deleted. TaraLyn 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crap. porges 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I never agreed to it being written in the first place, but fixed it up originally so it'd look nicer. But anyways, completely not notable. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:23, 27 April 2006 (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.