Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esker Melchior
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for an A7, I (perhaps hastily) deleted it as an attack page. The creator has objected, so I'm listing it here for a transparent debate (no vote). --Doc (?) 10:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete VERY narrow scope. NN Qaz (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Qaz (talk) Dlyons493 Talk 13:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete first of all due to lack of notability. It may have helped slightly if it was actually funny, but this is not. -- Egil 15:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Un-encyclopedic; sure looks like an attack page. (I was the person who nominated this as a speedy). While I despise the tactics of SCO, and am general a fan of including borderline-notable articles, articles on unremarkable posters on message boards don't belong on Wikipedia. Regardless of whether this is an attack, someone wanting to give credit to a rather funny troll, or vanity--this isn't appropriate for here. --EngineerScotty 18:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN --Rogerd 19:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The answer can only be to delete, however fond of Esker I am. However, the material could be re-sourced to a yahoo trolls page, like Slashdot_trolling_phenomena. Vryl 13:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually a pity, since I think Esker has the potential to become a phenomenon throughout forum boards all over the internet, but I agree that at this point, this is too narrow in scope. Note that it's not an attack though, everybody loves the guy as far as I can tell. --195.216.66.1 07:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.