Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Film09

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Film09

Violation of WP:USERPAGE; possible sockpuppet of User:Pprice1 and User:Laurenwest99, who unsuccessfully tried to create a page on Scott Walterschied a few days ago [1]. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested G11 speedy. It's blatant advertising/spamming. // roux 07:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP but not G11, declined speedy. Regards So Why 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost or a vehicle for advertisement. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to air your spam. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a in house counsel for Paramount and am fully aware of Mr. Scott Walterschied. How this article is advertising or spam asserted by these 2 users asking for it's deletion, is without any credibility or substance. It is factually acurate and as such (and in compliance with Wikipedia Rules) SHOULD BE PUBLISHED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolrubensteinesq (talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can dismiss the above as obvious SPA. Only edit is to this page. // roux 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note on the above account's talkpage explaining both WP:N and WP:NLT/WP:DOLT. // roux 23:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've left a note about how there is no lawyer on the California Bar named Carol Rubenstein [2] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahahahaaahaahaaa. Oh my. I'd ask for a block based on the volume of quacking in the vicinity, but this could turn out to be very funny. // roux 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the other two states for shits and giggles...no dice. --Smashville^talk 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added her to the increasingly long and (dare I say) hilarious list of possible Pprice1 sockpuppets. Anybody here got checkuser access? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for canned meat. Sam ^Blab 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attempt to preserve the soon-to-be-deleted (and spamtastic) Scott Walterschied. Graymornings_(talk) 05:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vernon I am a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bar and now you are crossing the line. I plan to subpoena Wilkipedia as to your information because you have committed a major error in your accusation which is actionable in a civil suit. In the spirit of the New Year I will settle for a apology on this page asap. --Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Above user indef-blocked for making legal threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a member of a bar early tonight...--Smashville^talk 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I passed many bars earlier today and saw some fireworks at midnight. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how badly informed Carolrubenstein is for a lawyer! Almost makes you think maybe she isn't one. Or that you yanks aren't clearing your lawyers properly :P. Ironholds (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both, sadly. Oh, and happy new year! Graymornings_(talk) 09:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the screed at the top of it is not helping. I'm not sure if the account creating this drek is a lawyer or not (my money is on (s)he is not), but in any case, someone needs to point the main account towards the relevant policies (WP:Notability, WP:No legal threats, WP:Spam) and block all involved accounts until the hangover wears off on Jan. 3rd. Remember, kiddies, bar has more than one meaning! -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 12:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion, since the content is almost certainly going to be deleted through AfD it has no encyclopedic value. Hut 8.5 13:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion if sincere, or a joke page otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If admin SoWhy had not declined the speedy deletion already I would delete it on the spot per g11. Chillum 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be it speedy delete, or be it slow and deliberate delete, it be gonna be gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been recreated at the unsalted page Scott walterschied. Requested CSD-G4. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4'd, with salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. 78.34.151.178 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Film09 create that article, or was it another "lawyer"? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott walterschied was created by User:Film09. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just IMHO, it's probably time to ban this user and his socks. [3] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU says they're at most two people, all blocked now. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:17, 2 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.