Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt taillon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 29 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)
[edit] Kurt taillon
Vanity. smoddy 18:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. KFP 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn DS1953 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. More nonsense than vanity. --Jyril 18:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Only by being patent nonsense would the article qualify for speedy deletion. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Come off it, the last line is Kurt is very good at baseball and plays 1st 3rd and pitcher Kurt is also Bananas B-A-N-A-N-A-S, if it isnt nonsense then what the hell is.Bluemoose 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That is silliness, but it is not patent nonsense. Please refresh your memory of the definition of patent nonsense, especially what it is not to be confused with. Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- Come off it, the last line is Kurt is very good at baseball and plays 1st 3rd and pitcher Kurt is also Bananas B-A-N-A-N-A-S, if it isnt nonsense then what the hell is.Bluemoose 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Only by being patent nonsense would the article qualify for speedy deletion. This article is not patent nonsense. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Delete--needs a hell of a lot of work to pull it out, and I'm not sure it'd work, even then. ChercherEccles 19:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy per section 1.2.1. --Xcali 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What context does it lack, exactly? Please don't abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 20:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Look at the example given there. Other than verbosity, this is no different. --Xcali 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It is significantly different. In the example, there isn't any context to tell us what "Factory and the Hacienda" are. In this article, by contrast, it's clear what "arlington hts.", "Paul Ed Taillon" and "Donna Lee Taillon" are. Uncle G 22:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Look at the example given there. Other than verbosity, this is no different. --Xcali 20:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What context does it lack, exactly? Please don't abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 20:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Article does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 20:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
- Delete silly vanity. --Etacar11 01:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - silly, unverifiable, unencyclopedic patent vanity nonsense of the sort which is clogging up VFD. --FCYTravis 04:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Only because 8 people feel the need to vote when 2 would be plenty. Kappa 05:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's mis-stating the issue and dangerous ground to tread. The number of people voting is not what is "clogging up VFD", according to those who make that assertion. It is the number of articles to be read and discussed (a natural consequence of the growth in the number of new articles being added). The number of people commenting is not the issue. (Furthermore: If 2 editors were plenty, this would be speedy deletion.) It's dangerous ground to tread to chastise others for adding their opinions because "2 [delete votes] would be plenty" when also making the 3rd vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Kenneth Matthews. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- 2 editors are not always plenty, but they are in obvious cases like this, where no-one's actually going vote keep unless the article is rewritten or new evidence is produced. Kappa 16:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If these cases were obvious to 2 editors, we would already have worked out a speedy deletion criterion to cover them, long since, stating the reason that they are obvious. (I happen to think that we are close to working out a speedy deletion criterion that does cover them. There's certainly a hypothetical speedy deletion criterion where this article qualifies, which 2 editors could apply. These cases may become obvious if that hypothetical criterion is accepted. But it hasn't yet even been proposed, and it's a criterion that I suspect is only obvious in hindsight.) Uncle G 23:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- 2 editors are not always plenty, but they are in obvious cases like this, where no-one's actually going vote keep unless the article is rewritten or new evidence is produced. Kappa 16:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's mis-stating the issue and dangerous ground to tread. The number of people voting is not what is "clogging up VFD", according to those who make that assertion. It is the number of articles to be read and discussed (a natural consequence of the growth in the number of new articles being added). The number of people commenting is not the issue. (Furthermore: If 2 editors were plenty, this would be speedy deletion.) It's dangerous ground to tread to chastise others for adding their opinions because "2 [delete votes] would be plenty" when also making the 3rd vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark Kenneth Matthews. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
- Only because 8 people feel the need to vote when 2 would be plenty. Kappa 05:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete family vanity. JamesBurns 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.Bluemoose 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
