Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Rojas (Bonafide)

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 Delete. To those complaining about the nomination, it was linked to a page that explained the jargon. Viridae^Talk 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Rojas (Bonafide)

Stephen Rojas (Bonafide) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Vanispamcruftisement. The Crying Orc 11:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nomination is jargon. Catchpole 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a non sequitur. I chose to use one word, linked to a document, so that people wouldn't have to wade through screeds of 'This article fails WP:X, WP:Y and WP:Z etc.', which is less legible. One word sums up an entire concept, and if you don't know what the word means you click on the link. If that pisses you off for some reason, then the logical thing to do is not to vote at all, rather than offering an opinion which is not based on the article. Please also read WP:POINT — patrolling the deletion pages and adjusting your votes based on criteria like 'jargon in the nomination' is abusing the AfD process to prove that you don't like something. The Crying Orc 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to demonstrate notability, fails to cite sources, appears to be original research, likely vanity. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, re-nominate for deletion with an actual summary of the article's faults -Toptomcat 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you would read the page that is linked to in the nom, you would realize that Vanispamcruftisement stands for conflict of interest, spam, cruft, and advertisement. There's no need to relist. By your logic, your post should be discounted for having "no actual objection based on the merits of the article". --RoninBK_ETC 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN, if Ghits are taken into account... Pete Fenelon 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not that it matters (the subject of the article can't achieve notability through any faults of a nominator), but the nomination was perfectly understandable to me. Vanispamcruftisement tells me everything I need to know to understand why this was put up for deletion. In any case, I think the nomination is right - this does appear to be a non-notable bio. --TheOtherBob 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanispam-etc... WMMartin 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.