This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sp3tt[edit]

It really p*sses me off that such extreme vanity is not speedy deletable. But it's not. So here I am, and here you are, and it gets its five days of fame. Denni☯ 00:08, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnotable vanity. Nobody cares about some random guy's computer. Nestea 00:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Waste of time and resources and of no interest to anyone, with the possible exception of the guy himself. -- Captain Disdain 00:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Does this satisfy speedy criteria 1 under articles that says Very short articles with little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.") ? RJFJR 00:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, "a wellknown wannabe-hacker who live in Sweden" has enough context that we can tell it is vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete wannabe. Gazpacho 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I agree with Denni....and, of course, it will get to live on forever in the likes of Google's cache. --Xcali 02:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Self-evident. Waste of servers. Andrew pmk 02:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 03:04 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Life is full of injustice. Five days of undeserved fame is not high on my list. ----Isaac R 03:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete clear vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, vanity and should be speedy deletable. Columbia 04:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do I really need to repeat what has already been said? I hope not. I will add another point to the list, however: Wikipedia is not a place to glorify the merely malevolent. Unless he's in the same rank as Billy the Kid and Ned Kelly, the article has no place. --JB Adder | Talk 05:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Now, seriously, why don't we start a policy discussion to make these kind of topics a candidate for Speedy deletion? The avalanche of "delete" votes on vanity pages more than talks for itself. Sarg 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. FYI, the beginning of such a discussion is happening right now at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load. Soundguy99 15:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ehem, ehem... Thanks and sorry for not reading things before suggesting :) Sarg 16:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nateji77 13:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: What is it about this vanity page that merits 14 delete votes when 2 would be plenty? Kappa 19:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Garbage, no content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion under criteria General #1 and/or Articles #1. - Mike Rosoft 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.