Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quack orff missie

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 16:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Quack orff missie
Some kind of vanity article or a personal attack. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Delete. &mdash; J I P | Talk 06:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--it is relevant to this page, which is referenced in one of the help guides here. --Jemiller226 06:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I still say delete. "Quack orff missie" deserves a mention on the page widening article, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Page widening. All a troll wants is attention and I see no reason for obliging this one by expanding on his bio. Radiant_* 09:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing there worth merging -- it's just one troll attacking one forum, and he doesn't even seem to be particularly original about his methods. --Carnildo 23:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 03:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit & Keep - If we forget the troll aspect, this entry is more about an infamous feud between a corporate giant (LonelyPlanet) and a small time author, something that has gone of for the best part of five years. Whether the trolling aspect is necessary is questionable however, it tells another side that is often forgotten and is often asked about among the thousands who are familar with the saga that has encompassed the battle to establish whether plagiarism/theft of research has taken place.  In short, it's a poor entry that should focus less on trolling more on the facts of a real interesting story.
 * Note: Above edit by 172.201.213.177. --Carnildo 18:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but it begs for an article renaming and some rewriting. --Mecanismo 21:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to what? Re-write how? --Carnildo 22:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it - it's a good historical internet piece.
 * Note: Above edit by 202.147.44.203 --Carnildo 00:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I can add a few more details as I'm familiar with the history.
 * Delete not notable. Grue 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, probably vanity piece by the troll. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  09:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.