Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Chaim Time

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. – ABCD 20:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chaim Time

Page author plugging own website. With a bit of cleverness, but still, delete. FreplySpang (talk) 04:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pure vanity Klonimus 05:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 08:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete The site is legitimate, unlike this "request for deletion." If Fark, Somethingawful, Google.com, etc. get sites then so should this. This vote by , who has nine edits.
• Don't Delete This site is hysterical. The site gets updated everyday, with actual content. Other sites and blog sites don't have half the content that this site does. This vote by , who has four edits.
• Delete, this request for deletion is legitimate, unlike this "site". The VfD section gets updated everyday (sic) with actual content. Other sites and blog sites don't delete half the content that this section does. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 08:28, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
• The request for deletion is perfectly legitimate. People submit articles every day; some of them are inevitably inappropriate. Is this website, just by virtue of being "hysterical", as notable as Google.com, the largest search engine on the Net? no. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. You would never find this in an encyclopedia. There is no reason to have this page on Wikipedia. --Rentastrawberry 21:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Chaimtime brags about vandalizing wikipediaKlonimus 09:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. —Seselwa 10:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - remove. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete I have been getting yelled at for putting a site on vanity, or it "littering" wikipedia. Why is this littering? The idea behind wikipedia that it is an open source enyclopedia bringing articles that wouldn't be anywhere else. The policy is so ambigious, as it should be, to only define legitamate articles for deletion. This entry does not violate any of them. This isn't vandalism, for I am providing a biography. There is no policy on what defines someone as important enough to have their article here. The website has copywrited information, so officially it has some sort of publishable content that people might want to search. Why is Ozzy Osbourne featured? What about Paris Hilton? She doesn't do anything but cause her family bad publicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers has no content except to say that it is the second album by Iron Maiden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%21 Why is E! entertainment channel listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo She was a poor women that the media used for their political gain. A family affair, that should receive no publicity. I can keep going, but I hope this will convince some people that you can't go after everything that is "outside the box."
  • Comment by sock Chaim Time. --InShaneee 14:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Deleting this article is the equivalent of ideological barbarism and is a perfect example of the "might makes right" fascism that is rampant at this so-called "open source" project. The sheer hypocrisy here is mind boggling.
  • Comment by user 220.37.154.26. --InShaneee 14:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing like a little self-rightous VfD ranting to wake you up in the morning. That aside, non-notable blogger, obvious vanity. --InShaneee 14:44, 6 Apr 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.