Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rance

 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 - kept - SimonP 02:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Rance
Likely hoax? Or notable and encyclopedic anonymous blog writer? Which is it? --GRider\talk 19:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Should a nominator give a reason for a nomination? Or is this old-fashioned? Is truth beauty? Does the tree continue to be when there's no one about in the quad? Is there balm in Gilead? If not, why not? Discuss, referring to Plato's Euthyphro and the concept of arete. (10 points) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you asking me for? This is your VfD nomination. Chris 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a rumourmill. Megan1967 23:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn rumorcruft. ComCat 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, oh and please note that a nomination counts as an automatic delete vote according to the Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion (unless specified otherwise, which this clearly isn't). Radiant_* 09:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's not a school. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote. Lacrimosus 02:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ridiculous. Grue 17:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Does anyone bother doing research before voting? He's definitely notable. There are 38,000 hits on Google for "Rance blog". Here's a Reuters news story on him . --Lee Hunter 03:49, 26 Mar 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.