Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Garrido (0th nomination)

Vanity page, and apparently original research - [1]. - Evil saltine 09:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious vanity. Got a few dozen Google hits, many of them no longer existing pages. His Tripod page currently has 6 logged visits. Half of them are me looking around the site for anything signifying notability, of which I found none. Livajo 11:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable. Geogre 12:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: the same IP inserted references to his(?) theory on several related pages, all of which have been reverted. Ianb 16:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good. It was making me doubt the veracity of those articles. - Tεx τ urε 16:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I wonder if this is the same Jimmy Garrido mentioned here: [2] Ianb 16:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, crackpotz vanity Ianb 16:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedly deleted on Sep 8 with entirely different content. Same name, different person? Doubtful. Nonsense. Delete. Rick K 18:54, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 22:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Anon) DO NOT DELETE. It is a TRUE research he studied in the Host University of the British Sociological Society in London, with professor Jeremy Tunstall
(Same anon) Don´t delete, it is NOT vanity what we are dealing with but just ENVY.
- Note: The preceding two comments were posted by 80.58.0.237, the author of the article. Livajo 18:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Garrido also "contributed" with the same article in the Spanish wikipedia. After a little Googleresearch we concluded that he is a famous cybersquatter. I just translated the article in Spanish and replaced the original contents. Sabbut 07:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's very cute, Sabbut, but Wikipedia is not an instrument of justice, it's an encyclopedia. Delete. --Improv 19:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If a few instances of cybersquatting are his sole claim to notability, I think it's still a delete. Rossami 22:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)