Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete vanity spam. Guy 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Vision Assessment for Transportation

Vanity article; does not satisfy NPOV in the slightest EngineerScotty 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:See also AFDs for the following:

--EngineerScotty 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, I wish people would stick to just creating their one line autobio vanity stub that can be speedy deleted on sight. Equendil Talk 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'NYer EngineerScotty and Equendil are retaliating against me User:NYer for earlier complaints I made against certain Wikipedia administrators. Please DO NOT delete this entry. Furthermore, they are not medical doctors or biomedical engineers and this information is cited by government sources. Thank you.NYer 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
Fqm6254 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)PLEASE do not delete this entry. It is not an autobio. It is not a vanity autobio snub. It is referenced by government publications. Please ignore EngineerScotty and Equendil. The are not qualified to make this determination and are not educated in the art germane to this information.[reply]
Comment Moved the comment above to match chronological order. It had been added to the top before nomination. Equendil Talk 01:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I call to your attention this serious issue of retaliation. No user should have to be bulleyed when expressing concerns about administrators. This is not what Wikepedia is about.NYer 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this entry since it is not an autobio and it is cited by government publications. Thank you.

Delete with extreme prejudice, extreme vanity by someone attempting to disrupt Wikipedia for their own gain. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore User:Zoe who is a friend of the above bulleys. This is not what Wikepedia is about.

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not about POV vanity articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --physicq210 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael Kinyon 09:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 09:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant vanity. I already deleted one of these vanity namecheck articles and I feel an attack of WP:ROUGE coming on... Guy 11:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.