Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Forster

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 Speedy deleted by JesseW as a nn-bio. - Bobet 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Forster

Non notable biography +/- vanity. Originally tagged by someone else for speedy delete, but was reverted. I thought best to settle via AfD. First Google entry seems to be subject but it is self-listing in free directory.. Ifnord 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would be allowing for biographical information on this wiki!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmforste (talk • contribs) .

Comment, see WP:BIO for inclusion guidelines regarding biographical articles. - Bobet 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also WP:AUTO and - probably more to the point - WP:BAI. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the article doesn't assert notability (other than that she does her job and has some other interests). - Bobet 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. No assertion of notability in article. MCB 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not asserted. Blnguyen 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per MCB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bottom line suggests original research. Person is not notable. N Shar 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pintele Yid 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - totally nn bio that makes no attempt to lay claim to inclusion based on WP:BIO. So, speedy it along and save the subject further embarassment; she probably just didn't understand the guidelines. Eusebeus 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as tagged 3 times. I've tagged it again. User has also violated 3RR on this, but they don't know any better. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. Arviragus 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this looks like a classic CSD A7 to me... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one notably-looking feature (this World Peace Ribbon Project) doesn't appear to exist, or have gotten any notoriety. ~~
Delete I userfied it once and left a nice note about WP:AUTO; I have speedy tagged it twice and the user has reverted the tags (mostly not using her account, though). She also left a stroppy note on my Talk page and clearly has not read WP:AUTO. Not strictly vanity, I'd say, but cearly autoibiography, original research by definition, and no evidence presented of notability either hence serious concerns re continuing verifiability from reliable sources. As others say, tags have been repeatedly removed. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JzG above. Thanks/wangi 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page seems to have gone?? --kingboyk 13:18, 9 January 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.