Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Scott (Game developer)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Scott (Game developer)

One of several articles created today by User:GCA-Info, a SPA who's churning out bios on obscure computer game designers. Although there are some hits quoting him about his company's products, there are no reliable sources about him as WP:V requires, and no evidence that this fellow passes WP:BIO for creative professionals. Ravenswing 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per nom, and is most likely hoax]. See WP:HOAX. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it's definitely not a hoax; there's a fellow by this name working for the company cited in the article, alright; just because there's a lot of Dan Scotts in the world doesn't make this one bogus. He's just non-notable. Ravenswing 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO, unsourced. SchfiftyThree 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — ~~definitely leaning towards WP:HOAX.~~ Just read the comment above and it is strongly nonnotable unless some verifiable secondary sources can establish that. MuZemike (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources Guy (Help!) 11:30, 19 September 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.