Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Emeagwali on Brain Drain

Philip_Emeagwali_on_Brain_Drain

• DELETE Another entry from a fan, totally non-encyclopedic. rturus 00:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• It's not a fan. I strongly suspect it's being done by Emeagwali himself. --Robert Merkel 01:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So what's your vot, then? Mikkalai 02:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 02:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • In fact, this is cut'n'paste from web, i.e., copyvio. and marked as such. Mikkalai 02:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, this is linkspamming. Read the Philip Emeagwali article and have a look at the self-promotion sites linked to from it. --Robert Merkel 03:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. I have a problem with the baseline linkspam, self-promotion... If the prez came down to make a page about hisself would it be VfD? not. Vote on the deletion policy. - Amgine 05:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and unsalvagable spam. Vanity as well. I'd think speedy deletes for disruption might be in order since the person is question is known for abusing online sources for self-promotional spamming.
  • Vote by User:DreamGuy
• Delete: Even if it comes back from copyvio, it's not appropriate content for an isolated discussion. Geogre 14:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• It will be no surprise that I think this should be deleted. In fact, I speedied it on the basis of vandalism... --Robert Merkel 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The above comment was removed by 199.246.2.159. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Having looked at the original article, I'm almost speechless. Please, please, please kill it. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 23:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Even if the copyvio is resolved, this is not an encyclopedia article. It might be appropriate for Wikisource. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)