Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MARK PYBUS

MARK PYBUS was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 delete

MARK PYBUS

• Wikipedia is not a memorial. Susvolans
  • No its not but we are giving facts about this man, just like you give facts about Stalin. Keep Dr.Crane
    • I'd get annoyed about a comparison between the relative noteworthinesses of Mark Pybus and Joseph Stalin if I thought you were the least bit serious. Aren't you the one who added stuff about how Pybus often smelled horrible? Delete with extreme prejudice, block sockpuppet. DS 17:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and the person was not a notable historical figure. (He "made ends meat?") Geogre 18:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• So badly written it looks like a joke: Delete as nonnotable - rernst 18:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I am laughing so hard: "So badly written it looks like a joke: Delete as nonnotable" "nonnotable" is not a word
  • Personal attacks will not be tolerated. You just locked me onto this article. - rernst 19:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as fame is not all a person has to offer.pkoip

(UTC)

• • stop reverting my comments - rernst, 02:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. He sounds like a nice guy who did well for himself and for his associates, but that's hardly reason to include him in Wikipedia. --LeeHunter 19:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment My school soon is doing a project on Mark Pybus and the information here is useful. How will this affect your site is it is left here?
  • In that case, I vote it should be speedily deleted, unfortunately it won't be. Perhaps your school should start a wikipedia branch to include articles that it finds useful that don't fit here? 132.205.95.53 19:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • um, you seem to have had a few posts on vfd pages... you do know that anonymous votes aren't counted, right? - rernst 19:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • According to the policy page, unless I appear to be disingenuous, the administrators are supposed to keep my ideas in mind. Ofcourse if they're being elitist, they'll ignore me, but that violates the policy page guidelines on being fair and impartial. Wonderful how a clique forms around such a little thing as using a registered account or choosing not to. As anon users don't show up on VfD all that often, categorically ignoring our existence is elitist, since alot of users fair much worse in the appropriateness category than what various anons say. In any case, registered users do pick up on my comments on occassion, so whatever I say still has impact. 132.205.95.53 03:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Is not and never will be encyclopaedic. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 19:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• If the ends don't meat, you must Delete. -- Scott $e^{i\pi }\,\!$ 20:18, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) (Sorry!)
• Delete. Incorrectly titled, written as a memorial. Not enough evidence of exceptional achievement for an article. Average Earthman 20:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Incorrectly titled, and includes references to current and previous deletion discussion. I'm happy to keep it if someone can add some achievements, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it incorrectly titled? And now you are takimg the piss: That was a typo, it is supposed to be "make ends meet" sorry I offended you all. I can see that all your grammar and spelling is so perfect, I mean "nonnotable" is a word in all books, isn't it?

• An article that can be improved. KEEP.skill
  • user's first edit, other than a vandalization on the Death article - rernst 02:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 21:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Resolve to see this through to be deleted. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 22:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This has been deleted before. We have still seen no evidence of notability, either in the article or in the form of external links or references, and Wikipedia is not a place for memorials or biographies of the general public. --rbrwr^± 22:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are we all on drugs? If it's the recreation of deleted content, it's a speedy delete. I won't do it, though, as I made a mistake the last time I did. Geogre 22:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Now, if he'd been making money playing the organ by the time he was in fifth form... well, there you have it. By the way, I adored the writer's restrained use of the term great. Wyss 23:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• A talented music teacher, but certainly not worth placing in an encyclopedia, as talented music teachers are literally a dime a dozen in some locations. If he'd created a new music teaching method or was noted for instructing famous musicians, I could see it. If he were the lead organist for Saint Patrick's in NYC, definitely. But as I can probably throw a rock and hit no less than fifty people in my own tiny city with the same qualifications as this guy, delete. Inky 02:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• comment: - out of the first 30 google results for that name, only 1 has anything to do with anyone relating to music. The rest are students, producers and other people with the same name or similar. Excluding of course, wikipedia references - rernst 02:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted under case 5 - reposted content which was previously deleted. See the prior VfD discussion. If you disagree with the outcome of that prior decision, you should challenge it at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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