Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Eater

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soul Eater was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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

This article was originally listed as speedy, then the speedy tag was removed by an anon. It doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, so I'm listing it here. Non-notable, POV vanity. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 17:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I listed as CSD - still getting used to doing this, so my mistake - but this is still utter trash, so my vote is delete. Niceguyjoey 17:09, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just vanity and idiocy here. Unfortunately does not qualify for speedy. jni 17:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article in mention is part of a massive online community culture, and is well known for the members of it. The lack of comprehension by certain individuals is understandable, but cannot be excused. This article describes a charismatic personality and deserves in all certainty its place here on Wikipedia. 213.161.251.75 17:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Anonymous votes are normally not counted. --Improv 17:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep I believe my arguments would justify my "anonymous" vote, but since they were rendered invalid by Improv, I was inclined to register a username for the purpose of maintaining my vote. I would like to point out the continued lack of understanding and willingness of cooperation from the deletion zealots. Surely, rushworld would take his time to improve upon the Soul_Eater entry if you would just let him. Oracel 17:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Note that accounts created just for the purposes of voting on VfD, or very young accounts, also are only rarely counted. Welcome to the encyclopedia, contribute, but it'll be awhile before you'll be ready for VfD. --Improv 19:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Once again, Improv thinks he rules vfd. New users are perfectly valid voters, unles they are sock puppets. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:46, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page of an obscure and unencyclopedic person. -- Schnee 19:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern,

I thank you for your interest in my article labeled Soul_Eater. I beseech you to consider the future generations who may benefit from the knowledge of this great man. Without this article, all may be lost.

Kind Regards,

Rushworld 17:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I usually try to avoid using the word "vanity", but in this case, I make an exception--check out original contrib's user page. "soul eater" gets some google hits, but they all seem to be related to a book, a painting, or a collectible card; not this person. Article shares such 'human knowledge' as "The future for Soul_Eater seems bright, now with his favourite Idol recently being re-elected. He was unreachable for comment, but if public gossip is to be believed, it is said he'll be applying to be George W. Bush's photoshoot nipple tweaker." Niteowlneils 17:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete it. It's all true!

Kind regards,

m0rpheus 18:17, 6 Nov 2004 (GMT+1)

    • Sockpuppet - User:m0rpheus's only contrib is here, and he talks just like Rushworld. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Does that make his vote any less valid just because his vote is, so far, his only contribution? And how can you tell he "talks just like rushworld" by looking at measily 8 words?
        • He signs the exact same way ("[paragraph break] Kind regards, [paragraph break] [username]", which is just a wee bit suspicious. —No-One Jones (m) 18:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, not notable. I don't doubt that there is a lot of truth in the article (excluding the "he was unreachable for comment" part), but that is not the only criteria for keeping. Thue | talk 17:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There once was an an article lame, that put Wikipedia to shame. It went on VfD, and now you can see, twas deleted for non-notability. --Improv 17:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, silly vanity. —No-One Jones (m) 17:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The rising number of sockpuppets getting involved here only confirms my suspicions. It's always suspicious when a user makes his or her first edit to an obscure VFD subpage, which is usually linked only from the article and the main VFD page. —No-One Jones (m) 18:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • They're simply members of the community in which Soul_Eater is a part of. Whether this counts as anything, I guess only you'd know. Rushworld 18:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, not notable. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Utter crap. Should have been speedy deleted. RickK 20:47, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Antandrus 20:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Should be speedy deleted as vandalism. Subliterate scriptkiddie boasting by a person who has trouble reading a dictionary, it seems. Geogre 20:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily if posible Wolfman 22:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Actual Content of this article[edit]

I imagine, if all the ego-pumping were taken out of this article, it'd be quite small. From what I understand, all there would be is:

Soul Eater is a programmer. He writes scripts for a chat client that connect it to other software, and also knows some C++. He likes George Bush a lot, irritating people with that.

Pretty impressive, huh? Nope. --Improv 20:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Speed deleted as newbie test and funny vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soul_Eater&oldid=1079980424"