Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal newbie

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic topic; description is worthless, nothing more than a vanity chat room rant.

• Delete; this "Eternal newbie" article is not encyclopedic; besides which, it's so badly written as to be worthless even if the topic were encyclopedic. - Reaverdrop 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopædic in scope, tone & content.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Reaverdrop. JIP | Talk 06:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't understand how this differs from the definitions of "eternal" and "newbie" combined. --Metropolitan90 06:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You've got to be kidding me! (Metropolitan90 makes a good point, too.) Jared W
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eternal damnation to... WIKIHELL!!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Metropolitan90's argument. Vizjim 16:07, 9 May 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.