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. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Wolf[edit]

Thom Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contained sections copied directly from other sites, contains mostly incoherent (patent nonsense) information, little actual information about subject 99DBSIMLR 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is spam, a vanity article, and patent nonsense about a non-notable person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaksmata (talk • contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Man, that bot's fast - it took me one second to realize I forgot, but it was already signed for me!) Jaksmata 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, not intelligible. Clear self-promotion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Honestly, the last part is completely unsalvageable. It's nearly impossible to follow the changes in tense not to mention the erratic word choice. Also, the subject is non notable. --Cyrus Andiron 14:56, 5 April 2007 (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.