Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Joseph Vargo

This discussion was started without anyone else knowing that a revision was in progress and had been approved. This entire debate has been based on one person's assumptions and opinion, with links to old versions of an article, which pre-dated the approved article. History was removed so non-admins could no longer view a comparison.
 * Cryptic nominated to delete original article on Nov 13.
 * Cleared as filed then deleted it on Nov 20, and erased the history. But suggested the user petition for undeletion and repost the article with revisions.

External discussion
 * Article revised and resubmitted on Nov 22. Approved on Nov 23 by Cleared as filed, Tom Harrison and CBDunkerson via discussion on user's own talk page (see references below).
 * * Approval of revised article by CBDunkerson
 * * Approval of 2nd article by CBDunkerson
 * * Tom Harrison says deletion seems "unreasonable"
 * * User seeks approval before posting
 * * Cleared as filed offers more advice after article was deleted a second time

After approval for the article (with editors even adding to it), Cryptic deleted it.
 * * see history

Close. No new article is being proposed. Page is blank. I vote to close this discussion. Blooferlady 17:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to take a look at the list of verifiable sources, they have been archived here

Why is the Articles for deletion page being blanked?
I don't understand why anyone would object to the AfD page for Joseph Vargo being kept as it was when the AfD discussion was completed. There is no personal information about the subject or anyone else in the earlier version of the page. --Metropolitan90 06:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Blooferlady, Joseph Vargo's business manager, is sore that the AFD page ended up indexed on Google. So before this page was blanked, when people searched for her guy, one of the Google results was this discussion with a bunch of users saying that he wasn't notable and didn't deserve a Wikipedia article.  —Cleared as filed. 06:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So, are we going to hide AfD discussions every time someone gets sore about what is said in the discussion? It does set a bad precedent. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't get it either, especially given all the crap Blooferlady did to try and get it deleted (and for a short time, after tricking an admin, Blooferlady did get it speedily deleted by page moving it a bunch). While he/she's message to Jimbo may have been a "polite request", the behavior exhibited here was anything but. Locke Cole 12:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that it sets a bad precedent. But User:Blooferlady was going into full legal-threat mode (she sent me an e-mail filled with legal threats [directed towards Wikipedia, not so much towards me although it implored me to help her so she wouldn't have to do sue]), so it's not that surprising that Jimbo would give her what she wants.  For something relatively trivial like this, it's probably not worth even a threatened legal pissing match with someone who's otherwise happy to just pull out and leave.  Guess we've got to pick our battles. —Cleared as filed. 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)