Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Buck

Added to VfD by Acegikmo1. I think this is probably a speedy candidate. Darksun 22:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it quite fits the speedy criteria, but it's an obvious delete.   &mdash;Triskaideka 22:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely deletable regardless of speed. -- [[User:Bobdoe| Bob Doe ]] 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * First, thank you Darksun. My fire alarm went off an thus I wasn't able to start this page. *sigh*.  In any case, I wanted to use a speedy deletion tag, but the article didn't fit any of the criterion (in a strict interpretation).  I vote delete, of course.  I left a message with the author suggesting a more appropriate place for the contents.  Acegikmo1 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unspeakably deletable and a candidate for the proposed (soon to be proposed) Managed Deletion. Many admins delete this kind of thing as a speedy, even though, technically, they shouldn't. Geogre 23:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, either vanity or non-notable. I am curious to know whether the article was written by Rachel Buck herself or by an admirer. I have to admit to rather liking this page. If it is by Ms. Buck she could do worse than register and put this on her user page. After reading the last sentence three times, carefully, I have concluded that it is grammatically correct and logically impeccable. It reminds me of the old puzzle that asks you to add punctuation to the following sequence of words so as to turn it into a meaningful sentence: "If but and and were but and and but but would be and and and would be but." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * In Transformational Grammar, we were asked to parse "That that that that is is not that that that that is." (shudder of flashback follows)  I think it's by an admirer. Geogre 01:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm... That "that" that that "that" is, is not that "that" that that "that" is? Or isn't that it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. Now, name the syntactic value of each word.  That's where the hair started falling out in clumps.  (I decided Anglo-Saxon was much more fun, and it was.) Geogre 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can only think that her dietary and political habits are deadly in combination only if the room she may happen to be caucasing in doesn't have proper ventilation... Fire Star 06:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nothing is even alleged in the article that is a colorable basis for inclusion, and unless and until that happens, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I just had to do a double take because Rachel Buck was the name of a distant ancestor of mine, but she wasn't born in 1987. Delete anyhoo. -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 15:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Are we related? This is true of me too.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete- vanity - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as vanity. This author has made a number of...questionable edits. Joyous 17:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for sure. --Viki 15:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)