Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent cabochan

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily delete.

Vincent cabochan
It is a vanity page. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:36 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - I speedied it, then you recreated it by adding the vfd tag to it... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy candidiate. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:39 (UTC)
 * It's not even a complete sentence. This, imo, constitutes a speedy candidate under criteria 1: Very short articles providing little or no context -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 2 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
 * Vanity seems more applicable. It would be wrong to delete a vanity by twisting it to meet a speedy criterion.  I want it to go through normal VFDSuperm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:13 (UTC)
 * Either delete or speedy delete: nonsensical vanity. Sietse 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's barely-coherent transparent vanity. Rob Church 2 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
 * It's not even a full sentence. Very much a speedy delete candidate as Francs2000 said, in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) July 2, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this is an article 1 speedy, I think. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Patent nonsense. Pburka 2 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
 * Speedy. IMO there is no reason to VfD clearly nonsensical vanity pages, only articles that resemble proper ones deserve voting.--Jyril July 2, 2005 17:56 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.