Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.77.153.149 (talk) at 05:29, 27 April 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vanity Page nominated by 68.42.0.182

  • keep typical bio pagemsh210 20:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy keep -- I have to laugh at this, I really do. The anonymous nominator had only one edit previous to nominating this page for VfD, and that was to the Time Cube article, so his nomination is doubtless in retaliation for my having put up Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Time_Cube. I am, of course, the Michael Everson in question, and the article has been on the Wikipedia for more than a year now. Irregularities as to its original appearance were discussed at length on its talk page, and everyone was satisfied that it was not a vanity article. Apparently my work for Unicode makes me a minor celebrity, and other Wikipedians of note agreed that the article was noteworthy, neutral, and verifiable -- and it still is, as far as I can see. I am pleased to be one of the Wikipedians with article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_article), and I do hope the article doesn't get deleted. (See the Dutch version at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Everson if you are so inclined.) Evertype 21:15, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; there's already consensus that the article isn't vanity. --Angr/comhrá 21:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - I was one of the original people who determined that it wasn't a vanity page, and I still maintain that opinion. -- Arwel 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Apparent bad-faith nomination. --Carnildo 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This shouldn't even be an issue.
  • Check the history if you would like to see 209.30.65.63's vandalism to what I wrote above. Who are these people? Evertype 00:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Page smacks of self-advertising. His claim of celebrity status is unfounded and likely the result of some sort of catatonic delusion of grandeur. GNAA Popeye 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not encyclopaedic 68.42.0.182 01:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How can this not be pure vanity?
  • above comment by User 24.86.165.199 who proceeded to repeat this phrase about a zillion times in a fit of vandalism, which I have now deleted. Soundguy99 01:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP AND SHUT UP. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Unicode, whoo-hoo!!! -- 8^D BDAbramsongab 01:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
  • Comment This Vfd appears to be related to this discussion. Seems to support the Time Cube retaliation theory. 63.201.91.192 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and sanction nominator. Josh Cherry 04:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable self-advertising. Come on people, he wrote an encyclopedia article about himself and is the only major contributor. This is the definition of vanity that wikipedia so likes to get rid of. Wikipedia should not be used as a place that you show to your prospective employers how important you are. He already has his bio on his own domain, it doesn't belong here. - 193.77.153.149 05:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)