Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The jump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (IP votes are not counted.). - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The jump

LockeShocke marked this vfd on March 28, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - As the writer of this article, it is notworthy because "The Jump" launched the BMX career of Josh Barone, one of the most promising BMX riders to come out of Western Pennsylvania before his tragic death in 1986.
    • The above from 151.201.136.93; his only edits are to another vfd debate, a vanity article which I'm about to vfd, and this article. —Korath (Talk) 00:36, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard about this.
  • Keep - Yeah, that jump was sweet.
  • Delete. Pieces of plywood are not encyclopedic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
  • del After two hours the school's custodian dismantled the jump. All agreed it was totally rad. It may have been rad in '87, but it's a generic bike jump now. Any notable content should be tossed into Josh Barone's article, assuming Josh Barone is notable. (I have no idea on that subject) BigFatDave 02:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 03:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: If not, do we then allow all skateboard parks and any other makeshift ramps people make? This is trivial. --Durin 05:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is both unnotable and unencyclopedic. ("Totally rad"? Does anyone actually talk like that any more?) Firebug 05:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. And yes, my 12-year old brother. Although half the time I think he's being ironic. Meelar (talk) 20:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial vanity. Trivanity? RickK 06:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Trivanity! Yes, let's neologism it, LOL. Delete. Radiant_* 13:33, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Delete because it's non-notable, non-encyclopedic and vanity, strong because of all the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 12:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bullshit. LevelCheck 20:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial vanity. Hahah! The writer of the article said "notworthy"! Very funny typo. Nestea 20:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worthy of an article. Tony Jin | (talk) 23:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep". All of the sock puppets saying to delete this thing, that's a bunch of BS. If you were there, you would have though it was sweet.
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.