Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Robert Morris

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 Deleted by User:Gonzo fan2007 --JForget 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Robert Morris

Individual of marginal encyclopaedic importance, subject expresses a very clear preference not to have an article (see WP:BLP). He has had an interesting career, but there are no compelling sources cited. VRTS ticket # 2008032210012452 confirms subject preference. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't need this, he doesn't want it. --Doc^g 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like he passes WP:MUSIC without too much difficulty, especially given the hall of fame inductions. I'll think about it a while, but I'm inclined to keep for clear notability despite the subject's wishes. Certainly, it's not a negative article for BLP concerns. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- copyvio is a different issue entirely. In that case, delete without prejudice for recreation with original text or stubbify and wait. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COPYVIO of http://www.rockabillyhall.com/RobertMorris.html. Does seem likely to pass WP:MUSIC, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D copyvio, word for word. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio. (I can't believe I missed this in the big mess concerning Mosley Guitars). I'm suspicious of his "request" to have his page deleted, but it should be deleted anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around for almost a year. This underlines the significance of the noted lack of sources. —SlamDiego_←T 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above noted copyright violation. Google search does not reveal any other significant mentions. The Alan Smithee (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (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.