Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Harwell

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. JForget 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harwell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is fictitious and is actually a joke; article should clearly be deleted from wikipedia; the article is not worthy of wikipedia Relax777 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a hoax, but fails WP:AUTHOR anyway. Location (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm convinced that it is, since "Jim Harwell" + "Relevant Media" turns up nothing outside Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lack of 3rd party sources to verify notaability. The only reason I removed the csd tag is because it claimed notability. That is all they have to do to pass csd but one or more delete votes could result in a wp:snow clauseHell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax or not, still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (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.