Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (3rd nomination)

See you all again in 4 months... — BQZip01 — talk 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be y'all? X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I've never before encountered this article before, I can't see how the 'see you all again' comment applies to me. Oh, but it means an admission that other uninvolved editors will come along, independently conclude that the so-called notability is utter bollocks, and that the same group of vote-stackers will once again descend upon the AFD to 'save' the article. Good to have my suspicions confirmed. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh Lordy, I was making a joke that this article seems to come up for a deletion about every 4-6 months; it's an "admission" of nothing. There is no reason you, or anyone else, can't come by and re-nominate it. The notability of this person was confirmed by WP:CONSENSUS, not a group of vote stackers. If consensus opinion changes, feel free to renominate. Your suspicions are just that and there is no conspiracy. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably you should check your sense of humour in at the door. You forget that Internetz are Serious Bizness. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should probably grow up and realise that this is intended to be an encyclopaedia, not a social club for supporting your marginally-notable-at-best friends. As for the continued re-nomination by the previously uninvolved, there's an obvious lesson there, but it seems not to be taking. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)