Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennerage

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE (already userfied during voting, will delete redirect from main namespace). jni 20:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tennerage

I think the author was trying to make a user page, correct me if I'm wrong, and that's he's not making an article instead. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:21, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not attempt mistake this for a user page, rather, think of it as a person's foray into creating the abstract meaning for a new word.
  • The author does not wish to infringe on any rules enforced by the wikipedia organisation, however, and will not discourage article-removal for consistency's sake.
    
  • Please note: the author also dislikes having to refer to himself in nameless third person. It is purely for anonymity.
    -- tennerage 9:58PM, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)
    • Then it only gives me more reason to submit this for deletion. Wikipedia's articles are for notable people only. If you wish you keep this page, I suggest you become a Wikipedian, and place this on your user page, which cannot face deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      
      
      • I have to admit, from its inception I thought I didn't have a great chance; however there is the possibility that I will become notable from being one of the who's who on Wikipedia dot com. If that isn't notoreity on the Internet, then I have to beg the question: what is? (intended as rhetoric). I'm also a bit frazzled over the seemingly inconsistent formatting that certain tags seem to induce, such as line breaks and unordered list tags (your statements merely format themselves, while I have to be finicky). -- tennerage 10:09PM, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)
        • The easiest thing for you to do is go into edit for this "article", copy everything, start your user page, edit it, and paste everything there. The photos will move just as well. Then I can do whatever with this remnant. I then assume at that point that you will be a contributor to this site in general knowledge, and not trying to make yourself a notable one. For me, my user page states I am here, and states my various edits and creations, but I am nothing special; I just do what I like to do. Also note that even if you became notable somehow, you wouldn't be able to write your own article, because it would natually be filled with POV. Now if you don't mind it's nearly 6 am, and I must rest. Others will come to express their opinions soon. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Well this is a predicament. I hope somebody with a good sense of.. acceptance.. appreciates my side of the farce.--Tennerage 11:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - farce is one way of putting it. Nevermind, all's well that ends well. Nick04 13:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --BM 14:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious deletion material. I took the liberty of userfying the page by using the "Move" function. Does anybody have any objections to that? / Tupsharru 14:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That is what I was hoping to do. Teach me how to do that. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Use the "Move" tab, but put "User:" in front of the name. Only works if the user hasn't already created a User page, of course. Niteowlneils 14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 22:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Note. Since the article has been moved to the user's namespace, I assume that we aren't voting for whether the User:Tennerage page should be deleted. I therefore took the liberty of removing the {{vfd}} tag from that page. I wasn't able to place a new one on the redirect page, however — something to do with how the page is instantiated. — Asbestos | Talk 23:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Since the article has been moved into the User namespace, the leftover redirect can be speedy-deleted under case R2. I recommend we wait 24 hours to confirm that this is non-controversial. Rossami (talk) 08:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • What's controversial is the implication that I'm vain! It was application of my artistic license for educational and/or entertainment purposes. As far as 'deleting the redirect' goes, I wouldn't discourage you from leaving it there as a figurehead, so to speak, of the event :). Keep in mind the future likelihood of the 'word' ever officially being defined and/or incorporated in something encyclopaedia-worthy! --Tennerage 13:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note "vanity" on vfd has a different meaning than most verbal usages. Wikipedia is not intended to serve "entertainment purposes". Only ten displayed hits for tennerage. Not encyclopedic. Also note there is no "Wikipedia dot com"--it redirects to "dot org", as WP only has non-profit motives. Niteowlneils 14:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy (as has been done) with no redirect. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.