Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Antalek

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. Sango123 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Antalek

This article is not encyclopaedic. I deleted it 2 or 3 times on fr:Wikipédia Markadet fr 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VANITY WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Perfectly encyclopaedic, not deemed important by some people, and not about a famous person. Note birthdate of person wiki'd. Probably a rather creative birthday present.68.34.230.216 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit. Royboycrashfan 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• delete --Markadet fr 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Why is this an article? Bio, vanity; thank you for attempting to contribute to wikipedia please try again. Please watch this article. User is attempting to delete the AfD tag.--Strothra 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete While this may not be a world famous person, the person is rather well known through the Albany, NY region.User:Adam Riley 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, you NEED to provide evidence of that beyond one mention in the local newspaper. Her own website doesn't count. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You can think of a better birthday present than this. --Strothra 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - completely nn, vanity.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure she's a very nice person, but just not notable enough for Wikipedia. The "Relationships" section almost constitutes an attack, too. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unverified. Powers 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not an attack since she proudly admits this, and has vouched accuracy of entry. (unsigned entry by Adam Riley) 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:NOR? Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 02:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any strong notablilty of this person. Vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NOT, WP:NN and just plain common sense. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn (nn but more so). Not speedy, though, since it does assert notability. --David.Mestel 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. May I just suggest that we try to be a little bit cognizant of the subject's feelings, and assume good faith on the part of User:Adam Riley? It's becoming clear that he just wanted to do something nice for a friend, and it appears that some people are starting to interpret this AfD as a discussion on Ms. Antalek's worth as a person, rather than as an encyclopedia article. I know it's not, and you know it's not, but not everyone knows that. I'm just asking everyone to be cognizant of the people involved. Powers 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes and for that reason I am changing my vote to speedy delete because it is also borderline vandalism and complete nonsense. It was created with absolutely no intention of good faith in contributing to the Wiki project. --Strothra 15:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Read User:Adam Riley's edits to the article and you will quickly see there is no 'good faith' here. Tyhopho 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read them. I don't see anything that was obviously done in bad faith. Powers 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Try this - and read the last section of the human relationships. if you still think this is done in good faith either this person needs their head read or you need to understand that good faith does not involve nonsense like that. Tyhopho 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that at first, too, but Mr. Riley corrected me above. Apparently it's a little inside joke between the two of them. Powers 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A debate on Mr. Riley's intent is beside the point, as much so as any need to be warm and fuzzy towards him. This is a barely-sourced article about an obscure, NN lady who looks after crabs in a small museum in a small town. I've seen articles that were more NN, but not many. RGTraynor 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Tollwutig 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy delete per A7, article does not satisfy WP:BIO guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A7 is only for articles that make no assertion of notability. Powers 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing any assertion of notability, at least in the current version. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'm not just afraid of the clowns. Fluit 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This sort of nonsense should be swiftly nipped in the bud. Fishhead64 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obvious case of nn/vanity. DarthVader 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, pretty much a classic example of CSD:A7. Personally, I think it's more respectful to the subject for it to have been speedily deleted than to have a long pointless debate on AfD about an article which has no chance of surviving. MCB 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly and whole heartedly seconded Tyhopho 14:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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.