Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Sovereign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Sovereign

Chelsea Sovereign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
User:Chelsea Sovereign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - the author's userpage, with identical content.

I'm not sure why this article should be deleted, but I'd like a "reality check". There appears to be a WP:COI given the equality between the article writer and his/her username or userpage. At least one editor in the page history has questioned the veracity of this article, in spite of the varied references. I also find it very suspicious that this article was born in a single edit, but I could not find anything in the deletion log. Shalom Hello 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete (G3); here's the answer to your wondering: it's a copy&paste with alterations of Lady Sovereign. — Coren (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (As an added note, there's a hint when a page created in july has a dated tag from june!) — Coren (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And a quick question; I've hit a rash of those (copy-paste-alter) in the past week or so; is this something common or have I just been lucky to not have spotted many to date? — Coren (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. Fails CSD G3. Bart133 (t) (c) 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete too. Failure of CSD G3! Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps I don't fully understand the speedy delete criteria, but I don't see how this should be deleted. Yes, there may be a COI, although WP:COI itself states that occasionally an exception can be made. The article is fairly well-written, does not seem to have any issues with blatant POV, and it's referenced well enough to assert notability. Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe that the original author merely didn't understand redirects, and the other page Lady Sovereign was an attempt to have the article accessible under both names. I say keep this, delete Lady Sovereign, then add a redirect for Lady Sovereign to point to this article. Also, perhaps we should suggest that in the future, Chelsea should leave the editing to individuals other than herself. spazure 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Nevermind. Lady Sovereign has been around longer, and has been edited by many users other than Chelsea. For this reason, I agree to the speedy delete. All we really need is a redirect, not a full copy of the article. spazure 08:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; you might also want to note that it's disputed that Lady Sovereign ever used the name "Chelsea", and that all sources of that article use "Lady" and never so much as mention "Chelsea". I doubt User:Chelsea Sovereign is really related to Lady Sovereign. — Coren (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2007 (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.