Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Ritter

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 SPEEDIED. dbenbenn | talk 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aaron Ritter[edit]

The bits that establish alleged notability are inherently unverifiable. --fvw * 01:06, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Delete. Patent nonsense. Yes, that's right, I voted to delete something. --Centauri 01:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, articles like this should be speediable. Gazpacho 01:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And it's been speedily deleted at least once today already... by me. Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That was an entirely different article (well, "article"...) though. --fvw* 01:41, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  - So it was. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete It really should have been given the "nonsense" tag. An obvious speedy. --LeeHunter 01:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- - I deleted it. Elf | Talk 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - And it's been recreated in slightly slimmer form. I don't think this is a CSD, so I suggest we let it ride out its VfD. --fvw * 02:00, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Curps 05:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I've re-deleted it. Future histories are inherently nonsense and therefore valid speedy deletes. Rick K 06:02, Feb 2, 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.