Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Farquhar

Amos Farquhar
Not notable. --fvw *  23:04, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)


 * 'Weak delete. At least it isn't vanity or an ad! P Ingerson 23:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that the author of this article just created another article called Liar!! (which I have marked for speedy deletion) in which he says:
 * Go to Amos Farquhar in Wikipedia(tm) The free search encyclopedia and you will find complete lies! Lies I tell you! Lies!!! Muahahahaha!!!! If you know real facts on Amos Farquhar, please contact Liar!! at smorsbord.comboobnpoopmongler.comhtlm kssbsjdb
 * I'm not sure what this guy's point is, but apparently he thinks Wikipedia is a trademark and can't seem to even trust himself. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 23:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Vandalism or genealogy. Geogre 01:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary - Andre Engels 02:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy, prank. Wyss 03:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * del. Mikkalai
 * Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:29, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Wyss, what is your evidence that supports calling this a speedy?  Rossami (talk) 21:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not genealogy, it's fiction, which on wiki equals nonsense. It's also a prank, which is vandalism. Wyss 02:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, what is your evidence ? Are you basing your judgment solely on the comment above?  (By the way, please don't interweave your comments into the comments of others.  It makes the prior comments harder to understand.)  Rossami (talk) 21:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice on VfD to respond to individuals in this indented manner. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Indentation is good.  Separating your signature from your comment is bad. Rossami (talk)
 * Delete. Not speedy, in fact it might even be worth archiving this (together with its talk page and this discussion, but out of the article namespace) as an example of the admitted exposure of Wikipedia to vandalism. This is a fact, and we can't fix it. If we don't deny it, then nobody will need to prove it, which won't eliminate these attacks (some people really do have nothing better to do) but it will minimise them IMO. See also Votes for deletion/Dux, CA. Andrewa 00:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fantastic idea. Apparently, there are way too many folks out there who think this is some sort of chalkboard.  This guy's weirder than most.  Add a few recreational drugs to the mix and voilá!  Instant @$$h0le.  At least the B-Movie Bandit was factual.  Lies couched in Wikipedia formatting are still lies, only more insidious. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Go to Talk:Amos Farquhar and you'll see that it's obviously a prank. Somebody in the WWW 09:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)