Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Ritz
Nathan Ritz[edit]
Yet another vanity page...18 year old who did some mod work on some online game or the other, I guess there are millions of guys like that out there. -- Ferkelparade π 09:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable in any way. jni 10:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Isn't notable. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:24, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. David Johnson 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Is this not a godd candidate for speedy deletion? Gtabary 12:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not under the current policy, no. Although it would be nice if vanity pages did qualify for speedy deletion - it would certainly lighten the load on the VfD page and admins. David Johnson 13:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think I understand the reasoning behind vanity pages not qualifying for speedy. Certainly I've seen cases where somebody nominated an article for deletion because it seemed like a vanity page to them, but in fact the person was legitimately notable and, if anything, the article merely needed to be cleaned up a bit. Nobody knows everything, or should be expected to -- if we could just speedy such articles without providing the opportunity for second opinions, we'd sometimes accidentally lose legitimate stuff in the process. Oh, and for the record, this dude doesn't qualify. Delete him. Bearcat 03:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- <Pained sigh> I agree. A page where things are nominated for speedy and have to get three unanimous agreeing votes before being executed, and where any dissent would refer to VfD was my idea. Folks mostly entirely misunderstood. Geogre 05:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think I understand the reasoning behind vanity pages not qualifying for speedy. Certainly I've seen cases where somebody nominated an article for deletion because it seemed like a vanity page to them, but in fact the person was legitimately notable and, if anything, the article merely needed to be cleaned up a bit. Nobody knows everything, or should be expected to -- if we could just speedy such articles without providing the opportunity for second opinions, we'd sometimes accidentally lose legitimate stuff in the process. Oh, and for the record, this dude doesn't qualify. Delete him. Bearcat 03:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Alren 17:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Samaritan 02:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, vanity. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable --JamesTeterenko 05:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable, vanity. So he's an online gamer, so what? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 21:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:28, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)