Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wanjala

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy to User:Thewanjala, although I'm not really convinced that's very useful considering the author's only edits are to this article. If the author never returns, I'll delete it later if someone reminds me. - Bobet 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wanjala[edit]

I cannot fathom why an encyclopedia would warrant an entry on such an ordinary gentleman. Salad Days 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete of vanity article(although a better autobiography than most vanities have been). Jcam 06:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's clearly a vanity article. ~ Lav-chan 09:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity, all is vanity. And boring too. BTLizard 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. MER-C 12:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to article creator's user page. After reading Wikipedia:Userfication, I have ascertained that this indeed can be userfied. (I'm only being cautious here because I misjudged an AfD before and said userfy when it really wasn't allowed). --Nishkid64 18:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Nishkid64. Danny Lilithborne 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - violation of WP:VAIN --Ineffable3000 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy—Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. WP:VAIN is probably too harsh. Vanity articles that make no plausible claim of notability may be speedied. Those that offer some claim of notability, however remote, are usually sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This one has enough notability, however remote, to warrant this thoughtful review. That said, in my judgement it does fail Wikipedia:Notability (people); specifically the requirement that "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field," since none of the other criteria come close to being satisified. Williamborg (Bill) 00:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
userfy this please article created by new user we must not be too harsh Yuckfoo 21:33, 21 September 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.