Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal III (Vanity articles): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ShaneKing (talk | contribs)
2,530 edits
disagree
Line 97: Line 97:
#[[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] ''<small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User_talk:KeithTyler|flame]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small>'' 20:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) This cannot be handled objectively, it requires some discussion. [[Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion]] would be great for this.
#[[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler]] ''<small><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User_talk:KeithTyler|flame]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small>'' 20:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) This cannot be handled objectively, it requires some discussion. [[Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion]] would be great for this.
#<[[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] 00:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)> Too vague.
#<[[User:Jun-Dai|Jun-Dai]] 00:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)> Too vague.
#[[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) I like the idea in principle, but it's just too ambiguous in practice.

Revision as of 01:28, 4 January 2005

Proposal III (Vanity articles)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coverage—also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
If an article is an autobiography, the administrator may, at his/her discretion, move it to the author's userpage.

Votes

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ld | talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Xtra 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Vamp:Willow 01:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Kevin 02:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Carnildo 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. gadfium 05:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. DJ Clayworth 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ben Brockert 05:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Korath (Talk) 05:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Jeff Knaggs 08:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Skysmith 09:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. RadicalSubversiv E 09:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Dori | Talk 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  26. BrokenSegue 15:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Michael Ward 17:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Kilobytes may be cheap, but time isn't.Jayjg | (Talk) 17:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. wheresmysocks 17:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  30. RickK 21:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Anthony Liekens 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Vignaux 02:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  33. ℘yrop (talk) 03:16, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  34. gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. jni 09:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Xezbeth 11:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Bucephalus 11:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Alphax (talk) 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Tompagenet 13:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. Vanity articles are the biggest waste of time on vfd. Gamaliel 13:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. G Rutter 16:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Proteus (Talk) 17:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. David Iberri | Talk 19:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Agree that the obvious ones should go but the questionable ones should still be moved to VfD. - Lucky 6.9 19:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Guidelines for notability should be established before anyone can decide on their own. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. max rspct 00.16 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  4. We don't have non-subjective notability guidelines - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  6. Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC), too vague
  7. While the example given is specific, the actual text of the propose is vague. Besides the types of bands defined (which I disagree with anyway, a band can tour extensively without putting out an album), what else is considered a blatant vanity article? --Sketchee 01:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Just using a subjective word like "blatant" is unacceptable without first defining what we consider this word to mean in the context of wikipedia. Rje 01:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sc147 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  13. TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ливай | ☺ 03:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. These are still better decided by VfD.Dr Zen 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. I feel XI is better. --Slowking Man 07:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. The Google test is deeply flawed. iMeowbot~Mw 07:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. This is something I've been waiting for for a while, but we need proper guidelines on what exactly constitutes vanity. The guidelines given in the proposal aren't good enough. David Johnson [T|C] 12:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Rafał Pocztarski 12:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Notability is subjective, and Google isn't always reliable. These things are best worked in VfD debates, not automatic speedies. P Ingerson 14:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. I think many so-called "obvious vanity" pages can already be deleted as a form of vandalism. This expansion creates too much risk of something that is credibly notable being deleted simply because one administrator doesn't realize that it has notability. Kelly Martin 17:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Overly subjective criteria. --Goobergunch|? 18:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. This proposal could potentially lead to speedy deletion of poorly written, autobiographical or NPOV-violating articles about people/groups that deserve an article,. A proper VfD debate could 1) better establish notability by causing more extensive research 2) cause people who see the VfD entry and do research to rewrite the article. Phils 18:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. These inherently subjective cases deserve VfD not CSD. Dan100 19:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Peacenik 20:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. I like proposal XI better. Thue | talk 22:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. hfool/Wazzup? 23:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Too open to well-meaning but mistaken deletes.
  28. BSveen 00:31, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Jeff Anonymous 00:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC). As said by Humblefool, this is too open to mistaken deletes. What is the harm in erring on the side of caution in these circumstances? Kilobytes are cheap.
  30. Frazzydee|✍ 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. JesseW 06:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Ryan! | Talk 10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Gentgeen 11:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. Cyrius|✎
  35. Very subjective, encourages abuse of speedy deletion process. -- Naive cynic 12:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Notability is subjective, and Google isn't always reliable. These things are best worked in VfD debates, not automatic speedies Mononoke 16:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. PedanticallySpeaking 19:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree based on people who make no claims of notability, but disagree on the bands example: that isn't always immediately obvious and needs sorting through vfd. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) This cannot be handled objectively, it requires some discussion. Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion would be great for this.
  41. <Jun-Dai 00:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)> Too vague.
  42. Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) I like the idea in principle, but it's just too ambiguous in practice.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_III_(Vanity_articles)&oldid=9093997"