Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Opinion Does Not Matter

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your Opinion Does Not Matter
nn web log. --malathion talk 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable, with the temptation resisted to cute off with something like "This Vanity Article Does Not Matter"... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly fine article, does nothing bad. Breaks no rules and is completely neutral, it would be different if they said "GO HERE!" they do not, it just provides info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillon Says This (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 04:55:06 UTC
 * (this user appears to be 4.253.113.164, who has voted three more times below. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
 * Delete, yes it does break rules. See WP:NOT and WP:VAIN.  Zoe 05:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : Still contains nothing encyclopediac, despite the argument above. Manik Raina 04:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If my opinion doesn't matter, then I suppose you won't mind if I say Delete. The blog is nnvanity all the way. Karmafist 05:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - No rules are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:41:28 UTC
 * (this user's second vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
 * Delete. Non notable, but whether its NN or not is not an issue, its vanity, on the top of the website, it says "I made a wikepedia page for us".   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 05:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong, it is not vanity, someone point out how it is vanity to me and I will be suprised. So what if the page creator made a page? He has every right to, its a publicly made site, anyone can make pages on here. And the page fits fine with the guides to making a page. - Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:35:54 UTC
 * (this user's third vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
 * Are you by any chance the Thomas from the webpage? And I must have been hallucinating when I read "I made a wikepedia page for us" on the top of your webpage (I see it is no longer there), whatever the case, I will not point out anything from the webpage as evidence, as I see it is a futile battle.  With or without proof of vanity, proof of notability and alleged cult following is still missing, though some of those pictures were funny.   &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 06:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete - has no value as a valid reference guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.11.81 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:37:21 UTC
 * Keep - Nothing against the rules on said page. Dillon Says This 5:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC) (actually 4.253.113.164 2005-08-11 05:40:14 UTC according to edit history, and this user's fourth vote. Uncle G 08:56:15, 2005-08-11 (UTC))
 * See Special:Contributions/Dillon Says This: as of now, this vote and 2 acts of vandalism. &rarr;ub&#949;r n&#949;mo &rarr;  lóquï 06:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dillon and Thomas, this page clearly breaks WP:VAIN, which is part of Wikipedia's official policy. Karmafist 05:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how this page is a vanity page? They do not say that the page is amazing/great/the best ever, they just give information about the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.113.164 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-11 05:56:58 UTC
 * Did you read the WP:VAIN page? Vanity doesn't mean that you are self-aggrandizing yourself in the article, it just means that a person, or a person's friends, or a person's admirers (or a website or company, for that matter) which is not significant enough to have an article is written about the non-notable person, site, company to try to increase their publicity.  Zoe 06:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable blog not rating in top 250 in the Truth Laid Bear traffic rating see . Capitalistroadster 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an obvious delete, for the following reasons. 1.The page was created by the authors of the blog. Creating articles about one's self or one's works is frowned upon on Wikipedia because it (a) makes it likely that the NPOV will not be adhered to (as is apparent in this case), and (b) makes it more likely that the precepts of verifiability will be ignored (as is also apparent in this case). See also WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, and WP:NOT. 2. The subject of the article is not "notable." For an article to have a rightful place in Wikipedia, it must be of sufficient significance and importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia. There are more than 15 million blogs in existence, the vast majority of which do not meet most reasonable people's idea of notability. "Notability" can sometimes be difficult to determine, but there are usually less problems when the verifiability and no original research policies are understood and applied; they weren't in this case. To the new users who created the article page on their blog: welcome to Wikipedia. This can be an interesting place where you might learn many things. If you're interested in editing or writing articles, do sign up and learn more about the project, and begin contributing. Please understand that our votes for deleting your article are not meant as a personal affront to you in any way. We simply feel that they have not been in accordance with some of the policies of this project, which are necessary to keep it functioning.Kind regards.— Encephalon |  &zeta;  |  &Sigma;  07:07:12, 2005-08-11 (UTC)


 * Delete. nn blog. vanity. ManoaChild 08:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per ManoaChild. Nandesuka 11:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, doesn't even have a domain name yet, and the sockpuppets don't help. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 11:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Now, please, go get a life! --Marcus22 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Incidentally, Dillon (i.e. User:Dillon Says This) is the name of one of the contributors, per the link in the article, so assume that's one of the site's creators.   ral  315  16:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * delete unremarkable blog --Tim Pope 17:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete An attempt just to get people to visit the website. Seems that the creators just made it. NRS11 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn blog vanity. -- Etacar11   22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Your Opinion Does Not Matter. :D Actually, delete - as per above. -Hmib 01:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It's not even written well. Hujjat 09:10, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.