Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal XI (Unimproved vanity articles)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShaneKing (talk | contribs) at 01:42, 4 January 2005 (disagree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal XI (Unimproved vanity articles)

(Vote) (Discuss)

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

Extremely blatant vanity articles listed on Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute. (Examples of blatant vanites are 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.

Note: Because proposal XI is a weaker alternative of proposal III, if both pass, Proposal III should be implemented.

Votes

Agree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:12, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ld | talk 00:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Xtra 00:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. max rspct 00.38 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  8. Norman Rogers\talk 00:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Wikimol 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Vamp:Willow 01:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Kevin 02:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 02:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Carnildo 02:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Sc147 03:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Antandrus 03:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. gadfium 05:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. DJ Clayworth 05:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Ben Brockert 05:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Korath (Talk) 06:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Slowking Man 07:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Jeff Knaggs 09:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Skysmith 09:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. RadicalSubversiv E 09:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Michael Ward 17:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. wheresmysocks 17:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. RickK 21:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Thue | talk 21:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. DCEdwards1966 03:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  34. ℘yrop (talk) 03:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  35. gK ¿? 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. jni 10:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Ryan! | Talk 11:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Gentgeen 11:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Xezbeth 11:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Tompagenet 13:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. BrokenSegue 14:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. older≠wiser 14:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Mailer Diablo 16:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. G Rutter 16:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. Proteus (Talk) 17:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. Still too subjective - David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  3. Same reason as #3. There must be a clearer way to word this concept.--Sketchee 01:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Overly subjective, plus I'd rather leave the Google test out of CSD. Ливай | ☺ 03:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. The weird thing is, we all know what you mean, and I think everyone wants these articles gone without a lag, but this wording would allow too broad an "interpretation".Dr Zen 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. iMeowbot~Mw 08:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Rafał Pocztarski 12:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. So if the article creator improves or expands it, making a better article even though its still vanity inappropriate for Wikipedia, it can stay? The proposal also ignores the fact that the creator will almost always dispute deletion, meaning that under this proposal the article still couldn't be speedy'd. This proposal is useless. David Johnson [T|C] 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Answered on talk page. --Wikimol 14:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Dan100 19:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. hfool/Wazzup? 23:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Still much to subjective. We'd agree that these sorts need to go, but....
  13. BSveen 00:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Frazzydee|✍ 04:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. As proposal III. -- Naive cynic 13:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Meelar (talk) 14:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  17. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  18. 3 Days are pretty short. Not everyone is 24h a day in Wikipedia Matrix land Mononoke 16:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Reply on talk page. --Wikimol 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Suffers from the same flaws as Proposal III, and 3 days is not enough time. -- Netoholic @ 20:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  20. Just adding an extra complication. Use vfd. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Bad idea, and the sneaky "unamended version implication" clause (which has been rejected elsewhere -- why not here?) is deplorable and unacceptable.
  22. Shane King 01:42, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Adding more ambiguity is not the way to fix ambiguity.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_XI_(Unimproved_vanity_articles)&oldid=9089403"