Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Buonauro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 del mikka (t) 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Buonauro

Delete No accomplishment beyond being a blogger who committed suicide. Bloghate 00:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i was born at 5:52am on may 27th in florida, did you know that? i'll be 25 tomorrow morning.

when i was 12 years old i made a time capsule and i wrote myself a letter. the capsule was to be opened in 12 years.

so, last year, i opened it up and read the letter. i really let 12 year old me down. of all the dreams he had, i hadn't done any of them.

but i don't have dreams anymore. i only have nightmares.

when i dream now it's dark. there's no way out of it. there's nothing to take me from the darkness. there's nowhere to go. it's hot and dark and quiet. no matter how far i go, i can run forever, and it never ends.

that's what i dream. that's what i see every time i blink.

--this is quite said however ;_;

  • Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 07:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not a memorial. It is sad, but it's how well you whistle in that darkness that separates those who live from those who do not. Geogre 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote on the article, not on the nominator. Just because someone may have made mistakes in the past does not make them wrong. Delete as WP:NOT, per above. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hope every one of you dies slow and alone, with no one to remember you and with just fading pieces of paper in drawers indicating where your service is to be held. --Jscott 17:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What an astonishingly inappropriate comment. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 17:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thoroughly in keeping with the user's past comments and behavior, however. Geogre 19:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neither of your responses inspire me to withdraw my position. Also, Keep. --Jscott 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a memorial (consistent WP precedent and policy), uncivil editor is making sure to be remembered by Wikipedian strangers as a poopyhead whose funeral should be skipped. (Don't take this comment as a serious statement like Jscott's.) Barno 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Agree on the not a memorial entry... but should we look at merging with blogs an include something about social impact of blogs, highlighting that some early bloggers had documented their life on blogs prior to their death (I'm thinking also of that other guy who manage to get his murderer busted because the last entry on his blog mentionned the murderer was at the door. --TNLNYC 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very sad story, but article does nothing to establish notability. Also, other inappropriate nominations by Bloghate are hardly grounds for keeping this one. RadicalSubversiv E 22:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge would be ok too but not suere where Yuckfoo 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, wikipedia is not a memorial. carmeld1 02:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To begin, I think that every Vfd that Bloghate nominated, should be reverted, as he/she nominated quite a few articles in a short period of time, with lack of a valid reason. As for this article, it was created on 24 Jul 2004, and I am quite sure that many wikipedians have seen it since. The votes for deletion stating that WP is not a memorial, is the lazy vote, I am sorry to say. It is quite unfortunate that the majortiy of the web has turned a great deal of his websites into memorials, rather than displaying his accomplishments. This article has been on Wiki for almost a year, Michael Buonauro must have been notable for his art and writing, and because a blog hater, nominated it along with several others, its up for removal. In the time it took to vote, or for me to even write this, the article could have been brought up to a higher standing, than just a memorial. Which by the way, I am doing as soon as I quit. Also, Google is not the only research tool on the net. (rant complete) <>Who?¿? 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's plenty of articles that don't belong here which go unnoticed for a long period of time until someone lists them for deletion. And his article still does absolutely nothing to establish that he is in any way notable or encylcopedia. (Obscure web comics regularly get deleted on VfD.) RadicalSubversiv E 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this article, in its current state, does not prove notability. However, there are other articles of very famous people, that only have one or two lines, and do not get deleted. Article lack of content, or poor layout, should not be grounds for deletion. Its just unfortunate, that this article got nominated in the manner it was, and may prove notability if someone actually did work on it. Either way, I dont know who he was, nor do I know anything about him, would rather the article be filled with content than deleted. <>Who?¿? 07:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 01:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable. It is notability, whisch must be established, not vice versa. mikka (t) 03:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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.