Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesuvius number nine


 * 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 was   Speedy delete. 02:32, 3 August 2010 Rlevse (talk | contribs) deleted "Vesuvius number nine" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesuvius number nine no refs, prob hoax, etc) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Vesuvius number nine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unencyclopedic, childish and non-notable but appears to escape Speedy Deletion criteria. Ben  Mac  Dui  13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was intending to do an WP:IAR deletion, but instead since there is now an AFD I will vote delete, no chance at notability and original research. There are no ghits off Wikipedia for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing outside of Wikipedia and may or may not be eligible for G3. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. No independent references, no widespread significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Close enough to vandalism to qualify. &mdash; RHaworth 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete easily a speedy del, but in any case, no references given, or found, indicating notability. nothing in the article would lead anyone to suspect it was truly notable. if this is the best the article creator/supporters can find as sources, then it has no hope.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ROTFL delete No references. BE——Critical __Talk 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DONT ROTFL HERE! THATS GROSS!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Being a decrepit latrine isn't exactly significant; almost every latrine I've been in was decrepit, or worse than that. Aside for the extremely rare incident that a latrine will have significant coverage (there was a joke about this in DYK for April Fool's once), this ain't going to be notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. Who had this much free time? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted this speedy, non notable, prob hoax, no refs, etc. And note and I'm coordinator emeritus of the Scouting project. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:33, 3 August 2010 (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.