Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Geckle/Temp

 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. JeremyA 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard Geckle/Temp
Vanity is not a speedy delete criterion. But it works here. Denni &#9775; 02:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Delete -- What's not to love? He's in it for the "move of teaching" people. Still, not encyclopedic. --Tysto 03:38, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * 53% of the community agreed that vanity is a speedy delete criterion, I believe. I always speedy these type of pages. Delete -- Barfooz  (talk)  03:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you ought to review the speedy delete criteria then. Vanity is clearly (and unfortunately) not one of them. I would also like to know the source of your "53%" comment. Denni &#9775; 23:58, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Delete this and also the parent Richard Geckle (VfD) which is also in copyvio processing, so no need to actually vote twice. Patent vanity, not notable, could be seen as libel/attack page. I wonder how Barfooz speedies vanity pages given he does not have access to the delete button, but I like his reasoning in the above comment. jni 06:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. same as above. 216.158.31.195 17:13, 3 Jun 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 .