Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Golvan

: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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Colin Golvan]]=

:{{la|Colin Golvan}} ([{{fullurl:Colin Golvan|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Golvan}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Nice little résumé there, uploaded by the subject himself (no doubt a paragon of impartiality), but really, there are [http://vicbar.com.au better venues] for this sort of thing. Fails WP:N, as well as WP:V and WP:COI. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Aucune référence n'a fourni. Waterjuice (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete: notability not met. Mrathel (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete Self-promotion much? Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, this is a résumé, not an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
Delete, self-promotional piece. TJRC (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.