Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rance (second attempt)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. (blk-cmp error) – ABCD 21:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rance

Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Non-notable anonymous blogger. The previous VfD ended up with 5 deletes and one keep, yet the admin decided to keep it, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rance. It's too bad this article would have to wait another week for its deserved deletion. Delete. Grue 14:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I kept this because there was last minute information introduced by Lee Hunter that was never rebutted and seemed to cast severe doubt on whether this page should be deleted. Hunter argued that "He's definitely notable. There are 38,000 hits on Google for "Rance blog". Here's a Reuters news story on him [1]." - SimonP 14:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I couldn't decide before and I can't decide now. No vote. The fact that the article gives a proposed identity makes me lean in favor. The fact that the article helps publicize a blogger whose main interest is his supposed, and probably false identity as a famous actor makes mean lean against. The main reason I'm making this comment is just to emphasize that I didn't overlook the nomination. Google News search on "Blogger Rance" yields this single hit. I think his fifteen minutes of fame are over, but he did have his fifteen minutes. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Puzzling, is this the first time an article has been kept when there was a strong consensus to delete? Excluding the nominator (myself), an overwhelming 83% of the votes last round were to delete. --GRider\^talk 16:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not the first time an article has been kept when a count of the explicit votes showed a 2/3 majority to delete. So? SimonP obviously judged that in this case 5:1 was not a "rough consensus to delete," and has given what seem to me to be well articulated reasons. VfD is not based on a mechanical vote count. It is based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators, which is very good reading BTW. I notice that it currently does not even mention the fraction "two-thirds," which was never more than a rough guideline. It does say "when in doubt, don't delete." Anyway this is VfD, not RfC, and I think we should discussing the article, not a sysop's decision. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Article is nothing but one fact + speculation. As we all know, 1 fact + speculation < encyclopaedia article. Since there's a distinct possibility still that this is a hoax, I'm not certain that an article with 1 fact, 1 bit of speculation and 6 external links is worth keeping. On the other hand, the previous VfD does seem strange - plenty of delete votes, one keep, and "the result of the debate was - kept". Last vote on VfD timed at 5 days before this one tabled, so suggest that nominator waits a few weeks before trying again, to allow things to settle. Chris 20:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I support Simon's idea to keep in this case. The late addition of info needed to be assessed. No vote yet this time. Mgm|^(talk) 22:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article consists mostly of speculation on who this blogger is. I don't believe it is up to the standard required for an encyclopaedia article given that Wikipedia is not a rumour mill nor a fortune teller. Megan1967 00:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn blogcruft. ComCat 02:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - there are very many cases of fake or suspected celeb blogs. Maybe someone could write an article about them in general, but one specific case (of potentially thousands in the future) is not relevant, even if it is mentioned in the Museum of the Hoaxes.- Skysmith 09:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreeing with Skysmith's reasoning, and the article has nothing with both significance and verifiability. Previous non-deletion was reasonable given the added info, but after review, I don't think anything has shown need to keep the article. Barno 14:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.