Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Urbik

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. —Xezbeth 15:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Urbik

Vanity, not notable. You (Talk) 18:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure he and his son are decent people, but, yeah, vanity. --Etacar11 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If he wants his page, let him have it. He's not like saying anything invalid, illicit, or profane. Wikipedia is about ANYONE being able to put something in, as long as it follows its guidelines, and this guy does. --24.14.255.35 15:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, one of the guidelines is notability. You (Talk) 21:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As it happens, Anonymous there is correct -- Wikipedia is about ANYONE being able to put something in. However, it is not about someone being able to put ANYTHING in. Mr. Urbik is undoubtedly a cool guy, but I don't think he's notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia... and that is a criterion for inclusion. -- Captain Disdain 21:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am his grandson, who wrote the page (and as far as vanity, he is not, he doesn't even know what wikipedia is). He is very notable. Actually he is a very good friend of Rocky Bleier and his insurance guy. He also has many connections with many renowned people, even Ronald Reagan. I am not done writing this page yet so give me a chance and you will see how notable and "Wiki-Worthy" he is! --ejking 16:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that this user vandalized both my and You's user pages (by putting VfD notices on them) does not help his case. --Etacar11 23:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And he removed them from the VfD log as well. --Etacar11 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, ejking, the term "vanity page" does not refer to the vanity of the individual the page is about, but rather it describes the fact that it exists only because someone wants to promote that person. That, however, does not mean that the subject of the article is notable enough to interest the rest of the world. Of course, hey, maybe we're wrong and your grandpa is a notable guy. If that's the case, you have at least five days to convince us by editing the page accordingly to show why he's notable to the world at large and. That said, take my advice -- adding VfD tags on others' user pages isn't going to win you any goodwill here. -- Captain Disdain 00:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and the two articles above, I'm too lazy to actually vote seperately on all three. --Kiand 23:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity of the highest degree! And unverifiable "connections" with notable persons does not make one notable on their own. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or if they're going to be really difficult about this, then userfy. See if they like it so much when it turns up there...Splash 00:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page.--Kross 02:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and because I enjoy voting against people with "connections" to Ronald Reagan when possible. Xoloz 04:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 17 Jun 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.