Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales

Jimbo Wales

Non-notable. Just an ordinary Bob who happened to found a little online encyclopedia. Cchan199206 21:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Such ordinary Jims are exactly the sort of people who deserve encyclopedia articles. — Dan | Talk 21:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Why would anyone want to delete this? (unsigned comment by 68.237.83.58)
• Keep. Obviously significant enough to warrant an article, especially when other members of the Board were kept following VfD listings. Angela. 21:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a Mergist myself, but I can't think of anything that this could be merged with, so let's keep it until something turns up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 14,000 more Google hits than autofellatio. What more proof of notability could you need? Pcb21| Pete 22:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, this was more in jest. Cchan199206 23:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read our votes, I think that you'll see that we'd realised that... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I just want to know what is written about the guy who founded the little online encyclopedia ;-) --Schwalbe 13:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep FoeNyx 18:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cite precedent: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Angela Beesley. Delete not, or thou shalt be leavened (yes, I know what that means) in the fiery pits of WP:FARC. smoddy 20:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pabix + Pabix ܀. 12:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have said in another VFD we should "delete or userfy any article in the main namespace created by its subject. If someone is truly notable, let someone else create an article." This article was created by others because the subject is notable. Jonathunder 19:17, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • But only after the subject finally said it was ok to write about him ;). Pcb21| Pete 23:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seeing that the user who called this vote has admitted it was in jest, I see no reason to go on with it. Let's close the vote, with a plea to other contributors not to use up everybody else's valuable time with votes that are not meant to be taken seriously. David Cannon 13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.