Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Zumock


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chad Zumock

 * Delete vanity, not notable. Uucp 11:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted.  For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity.  Why not explain why the subject is non-notable?  Why you believe the article to be vanity?  And so on.  A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as vanity. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 13:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete part of the "Phat Phree" vanity spree. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.