Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Richardson

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Richardson

• deleteVanity page, no importance Fantrl 28 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)
• Delete no purer example of vanity was ever found. David | Talk 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)
• "Doubtless many fools will edit this page in a childish attempt to quell the rising fame of Daniel richardson, but they should be greatly afeared for nothing can stop his rise to prominence" Editing may not, but this might: Delete! Sonic Mew June 28, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
• Speedy please. Aecis 28 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• Delete - but this is a fine illustration of why some vanity pages should be speedy deletable. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
• Speedy In my opinion, patent vanity articles claiming "greatest person ever" or similar can and should be speedied as jokes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• speedy - I agree with Starblind. These vanity things are a menace, and easily identified. There's another one below at Adrian Elicegui. - Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Delete The "real" Dan Richardson Risch algorithm was born about 20 years earlier and is a lecturer in Bath University dept of Computer Science (homepage) (I'd come up with a biography, but don't know sufficient details, plus the web contains far too many richardsons). (Unsigned vote by 80.3.32.9)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.