Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Perpetua


 * 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 No consensus. Since this was so very near a delete consensus, I have no prejudice against this being re-AfDed in the near future if there is no improvement to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Perpetua
I've been reverting vandalism on this article for months, and every time I do I wonder why. The vandals have singled out this particular article because he's an MP3 blogger and he's a running joke, or something, on a music board. But every time I look at this two-line stub, I think, why do we have an article on Perpetua? He has a reasonably well-known MP3 blog, but other than that he's not particularly notable and the only edits to this article since forever have been either vandalism or reverts of vandalism. So let's just put this article out of its misery. Delete.  &middot; rodii &middot;  03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note the sorry edit histories of this and Fluxblog. Vandal magnets, no real improvements to the article likely. I like Perpetua a lot; it's too bad he has such a sucky article.  &middot; rodii &middot;  03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable --Nick Y. 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as he has some web notability. I suggest asking for the page to be protected until there is more to add. Tyrenius 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable and a hassle. --Chaser 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that his page here is being targeted by vandals is neither here nor there, as the nominator recognises (all that deleting will do is mean that vandals start creating fake new pages for this person instead). However, Mr Perpetua does seem to be no more notable than you or I at present. Should we all have articles as "pioneers of wikipedia"?  Cos in 100 years' time, that's what we'll be.  Delete. Vizjim 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, what little notability he may have comes nowhere near the threshold of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Tyrenius's comments.-- E va   d  b  18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - since the drive behind this nomination is the fact that the nominator is fed-up reverting vandalism, would the deletion not mean that the vandals have won? Is Wikipedia giving in to bullying? Ac@osr 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really... it's just that every time I revert it, I think "why am I looking out for this useless article?" It seems like the vandals are the only people in the world who are truly interested in the article.  &middot; rodii &middot;  19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn.  Grue   09:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, needs a bit of expansion. For what it's worth, I've put him in Category:Living people, so maybe more people will keep an eye on the article. Runcorn 19:49, 15 May 2006 (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.