Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Richardson

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Daniel Richardson

 * deleteVanity page, no importance Fantrl 28 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)
 * Delete no purer example of vanity was ever found. David | Talk 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)
 * "Doubtless many fools will edit this page in a childish attempt to quell the rising fame of Daniel richardson, but they should be greatly afeared for nothing can stop his rise to prominence" Editing may not, but this might: Delete!  Sonic Mew June 28, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
 * Speedy please. Aecis 28 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)
 * Delete - but this is a fine illustration of why some vanity pages should be speedy deletable. -- BD2412 talk June 28, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
 * Speedy In my opinion, patent vanity articles claiming "greatest person ever" or similar can and should be speedied as jokes. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd June 28, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
 * speedy - I agree with Starblind. These vanity things are a menace, and easily identified. There's another one below at Adrian Elicegui. -  Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
 * Delete blatant vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
 * Delete The "real" Dan Richardson Risch algorithm was born about 20 years earlier and is a lecturer in Bath University dept of Computer Science (homepage) (I'd come up with a biography, but don't know sufficient  details, plus the web contains far too many richardsons). (Unsigned vote by 80.3.32.9)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.