| Revision as of 21:43, 23 September 2007 editLaniMakani (talk | contribs)10 edits →Nathan Hamilton← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:52, 23 September 2007 edit undoRoz Lipschitz (talk | contribs)277 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Delete''' As per above, doesn't meet ]. ] 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' As per above, doesn't meet ]. ] 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''I went through and looked at all the various different versions in the Edit history. There were a lot of rumors that if confirmed would make a great article but as it is only rumors and cannot be confirmed with reliable sources it should be deleted! ] 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''I went through and looked at all the various different versions in the Edit history. There were a lot of rumors that if confirmed would make a great article but as it is only rumors and cannot be confirmed with reliable sources it should be deleted! ] 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| '''Delete It!!!'''- a couple of us have been trying to point out that this article was based on gossip, rumor etc for a long time. If you read the one and only reference, you will see that it is all a "boy's fantasy!" Also I contacted Gay News Netherlands office and that write does not even work for them! ] 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:52, 23 September 2007
Nathan Hamilton
- Nathan Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Individual is not notable. The only source for the article is a single interview in an obscure publication. The article has become the repository for rumor and BLP violations. Editors of the entry believe it should be deleted, per Talk:Nathan Hamilton. -Jmh123 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever else might be going on, this entry doesn't meet the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Notability (pornographic actors). Accounting4Taste 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He doesn't, uh, measure up to the porn bio standards. Yes, such WP standards do exist... Qworty 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Article has been indeed the repository for rumor and BLP violations and the only source is very obscure and the only back-up source is unreliable for many reasons one being it quotes Paul Barresi's chapter which would be marketed as fiction should it ever get published. This article should have been deleted a long time ago! This has all been hearsay and based on comments that readers have read on websites etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per above, doesn't meet WP:Notability. Wstaffor 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteI went through and looked at all the various different versions in the Edit history. There were a lot of rumors that if confirmed would make a great article but as it is only rumors and cannot be confirmed with reliable sources it should be deleted! LaniMakani 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete It!!!- a couple of us have been trying to point out that this article was based on gossip, rumor etc for a long time. If you read the one and only reference, you will see that it is all a "boy's fantasy!" Also I contacted Gay News Netherlands office and that write does not even work for them! Roz Lipschitz 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: