Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Camanzo


 * 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 speedy delete under A7, as any and every assertion of notability is obviously false, or some other speedy criterion (take your pick). - ulayiti (talk)  01:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Camanzo
Pretty amusing article, but should be in Uncyclopedia or something. Definitely shouldn't belong here. 207.207.127.240 00:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I read on the village pump that there's a speedy delete tag for articles like this. Does every article have to go through an articles for deletion vote? Pintele Yid 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - a definite hoax. Pl. BJAODNify. I think it cd have been speedied under patent nonsense, I may be wrong though. Anyways, since an anon IP has listed it here, let's discuss it here. I guess it'd get closed pretty soon anyways. --Gurubrahma 00:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Please read patent nonsense.  There is a distinction between nonsense and patent nonsense. Uncle G 00:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It could've been speedied under G3 for silly vandalism. I'm taking it to BJAODN, sad to know that it is un-Uncyclopedic ;)--Gurubrahma 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not funny enough for Uncyclopedia. Ironically, Uncyclopedia has guidelines on the difference between just plain silliness and actual humour.  This article is in the former category.  Unverifiable rubbish.  Delete. Uncle G 00:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible G3 category for "silly vandalism" as defined under Vandalism. I quote our definition: Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.) A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia." I consider that this article meets the silly vandalism category and doubt that it is funny enough for Uncyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.