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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Votes

[edit] 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)
  46. Likely to prove a clunky procedure, I fear, but should prop. 3 fail, better than nowt. Dbiv 21:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. SimonP 21:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  48. Inferior to prop 3, better than nothing. Gamaliel 02:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. My safety vote, 3 preferred. Wyss 04:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  51. SWAdair | Talk 08:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Warofdreams 13:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Mrwojo 22:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. A little better than Proposal III--Plato 23:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. If the subject is noteworthy, the author will attempt to repair if fair unencyclopedic warning is given. Cmprince 00:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  57. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 01:20, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  58. Three days may not be enough, though. Josh 12:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  59. -- uriber 22:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Henrygb 22:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. ike9898 02:29, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  63. Mikkalai 03:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  64. Stormie 07:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  65. Jiang 08:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Thryduulf 11:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  67. AlexTiefling 18:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. foobaz·✐ 19:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. OK Infrogmation 20:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. RedWordSmith 22:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  71. --Spangineer ∞ 00:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Only if III fails to pass. -- Grunt   ҈  01:19, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  73. Cool Hand Luke 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  74. Martg76 16:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. R. fiend 21:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. CryptoDerk 22:25, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  77. Denni☯ 03:36, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
  78. RSpeer 04:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  79. Goobergunch|? 18:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Although I'd prefer something akin to Preliminary Deletion.
  80. Katefan0 20:44, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  81. Aphaea 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  82. R. S. Shaw 07:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  83. John 11:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  84. AlexR 14:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  85. RedWolf 21:06, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
  23. Cyrius|✎ -- still too subjective. Highly subjective decisions should be left to VfD, that's what it's for.
  24. I like the part about being able to move autobiographies. Apart from that, I think this proposal gives too much risk of erroneous deletion. How many Wikipedians know that Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic even exists? arj 17:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Votes For Deletion! ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. "blatant" is both too broad and too subjective. Gazpacho 18:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Hapsiainen 21:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Deathphoenix 00:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) I still think it's better decided by a VfD.
    I have found that three days isn't always enough for improvement to be made to a legitimate article. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:48, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
    Vote changed, now support. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 01:20, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  30. --JK the unwise 11:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. To subjective, and give it time and VfD not speedy. [maestro] 12:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. SocratesJedi 07:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Google hits or lack thereof do not measure notability. Time must be given to establish or disestablish that someone is notable.
  33. No; we need categorized deletion instead. Ben Standeven 08:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Norg 15:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Guanaco 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. Superm401 23:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): ALL vanity articles should be given to VfD, even if they are quite plainly useless vanity articles. Vanity articles are too subjective to be quickly deleted.
  39. DAVODD 21:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Don't need a policy in speedy deletion to move vanity to user pages.
  40. As I said earlier, difficult to judge. 3 days is too less (unless that actually means 15 days, just like "7 days" in WP:CP means 40 days). -- Paddu 21:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. Agree with Paddu and others that said 3 days is too short. --JuntungWu 02:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  42. 3 days is too short a time for this. VfD once again handles this fine. 23skidoo 06:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Agree with 23skidoo -- the current process, although not perfect, works well and is much preferable to expanding speedy. -- Visviva 10:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. Pointless. We don't need one more holding pen for articles that are going to get deleted. That's what VfD is for. --FOo 16:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  47. As stated above, I have seen articles on notable people such as musicians, industrialists and significant scientists described as vanity. Best to leave it to vfd. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. JoaoRicardo 04:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. Oldak Quill 19:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Starblind 21:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) Blatant is just as subjective as obvious.
  51. Strobie 23:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) rule too complex
  52. bbx 02:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Philip 06:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. — Asbestos | Talk 18:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 07:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Vfd candidate, not speedy. It's too hard for individuals to decide notability.
  56. BesigedB (talk) 17:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Anything requiring peer review is not a CSD issue
  57. review is necessary on all 'vanity' pages. Pedant 03:51, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  58. Jamirus99 04:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Exact same thing as number three. Wording still suggests that the writer has it, in general, for bands that are not well known. Read the current WP:VANITY page to see that pages on start-up bands are allowed.
  59. Eric119 A lag time for speedy deletion? 06:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Edeans 07:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  61. JYolkowski 14:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia%7EProposal_to_expand_WP%7ECSD_Proposal_XI_%28Unimproved_vanity_articles%29_a77b.html"