Jim Shliferstein 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.
- Delete, looks like vanity to me. Rje 01:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I hope he's experienced blocks of various lengths. Having peed on our wall, he now wants to write his name there. No thanks. Geogre 05:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Jim left a note on my talk page a few days ago (related to the Sun piece, not this article). He seems nice enough, and I think he may be beginning to understand what Wikipedia is about, so let's not bite him badly. Do delete this vanity article, of course -- he's not of note as a journalist -- but let's see if we can't kindly but firmly steer him into being a supporter (or benign appreciater) of this site (rather than turning him into a persistent returning problem)? Jwrosenzweig 08:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable onanistic practictioner. Gamaliel 08:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.Mikkalai 03:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to List of onanistic practitioners.Ha ha. Just kidding: Delete. It may even be a hatchet job (e.g. written by someone else to attack Mr. Shliferstein.) EventHorizon 18:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) It's a clear-cut Anti-Vanity case, isn't it ? - Delete.
Sorry, I get it now. Keep.
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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.