- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 09:41Z
- Randy Conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- File:Randy Conrad awesomeness.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
I don't believe this article meets WP:BIO. The subject is not notable. As one user put it in the discussion page, Wikipedia is not an all-purpose information dump. The subject, IMHO, is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. There has been discussion on the page itself but by a limited number of users. I think it should be reviewed by more people to determine it's fate. WilliamThweatt 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - badly fails WP:BIO. The interview and the commercial apparently received only local news coverage, and we probably don't need this information on Wikipedia at all. But it certainly doesn't confer notability on Conrad. --Hyperbole 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seemingly a waste of a good infobox and in-line cites. It's doubtful that the subject will have enough cultural impact to be called "encyclopedic" or to pass the 100 Year Test. Caknuck 22:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Noclip 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Caknuck, missing references and dubious sources Alf photoman 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete see my comments on the talk page. This guy might be nice but he isn't notable. Fails WP:BIO Maustrauser 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO, per above. Pembroke 02:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia isn't paper, etc. BabuBhatt 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia may not be made out of paper but it seems as if the only purpose this article serves is the make fun of the subject. (jarbarf) 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears non-notable with little chance of expansion unless he become a full-fledged actor down the road. Delete for now. --Nehrams2020 06:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, agree this doesn't pass muster with current biographical guidelines. RFerreira 08:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:46, 8 February 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.