Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar inflation: Difference between revisions
→[[Polar inflation]]: Delete. |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:Go to [[WP:NOR]], and read the section: '''What is excluded'''. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no '''sources''' given. [[User:Fram|Fram]] 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
:Go to [[WP:NOR]], and read the section: '''What is excluded'''. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no '''sources''' given. [[User:Fram|Fram]] 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | |||
The article is clearly about myself as my name is in it and it cites me as a source.[[User:Sills|Sills]] |
|||
*'''Delete''' as violating [[WP:NOR]]; [[WP:NEO]] and possible [[WP:VANITY]] as ''coined in late 2005 by cultural anthropologist and symbolic theorist Maxwell Sills'', given that the article was created by [[User:Sillsm]]. |
|||
To cite the passage you bring up kinu: |
|||
'''An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.''' There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 18:23, 26 August 2006
I'm proposing this and two other articles by the same author for deletion, because they are either extremely non notable neologisms, or otherwise plain and simple hoaxes. Author (of the neologisms, and of the articles) calls himself "noted", but is extremely invisible on Google. Neologisms are equally unused, and seem to fail at least two Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR and WP:V Fram 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Also nominated: Sills Point and Tropposite. Fram 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote the wikipedia standards you cite in your proposition for deletion: Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
Clearly every single article I submitted meets these criteria, and therefore my articles should not be deleted.
Sillsm
- Go to WP:NOR, and read the section: What is excluded. The section you quote is irrelevant, as a) the article is not about yourself, but about some idea you supposedly launched, and b) there are no sources given. Fram 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is clearly about myself as my name is in it and it cites me as a source.Sills
- Delete as violating WP:NOR; WP:NEO and possible WP:VANITY as coined in late 2005 by cultural anthropologist and symbolic theorist Maxwell Sills, given that the article was created by User:Sillsm.
To cite the passage you bring up kinu: An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of articles, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
--Kinu t/c 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)