Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Ransome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frances Ransome

Delete. Vanity, does not assert notability. Tagged for speedy by Xcali, and while I agree that articles like this one ought to be speediable, currently they are not. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. This is a very short article with almost no context, so is a candidate for speedying, article 1. Even if does not seem to be a test.-Splash 01:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Compared to the example given at WP:CSD, "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great", this has plenty of context. We know at a basic level who this person is; just not why she warrants an encyclopedia article. Perhaps this criterion needs to be clarified? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • We know she's in Exeter. That's it. Criterion is not "no context", but "little or no context", and this is certainly little. The criterion does need clarifying, though. Specifically, to allow speedy delete of blatant vanity as an expansion to patent nonsense. IMHO.-Splash 01:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a speedy candidate, IMO. I'm one of those who disagrees with making vanity articles CSD candidates, but I agree that this falls under criterion #1. "He is a funny man" = "She is the daughter of"; "has a factory" = "She goes to college"; "his wife is great" = "she is studying X & Y." The trick is that this is a vanity article that's also an article with no content. Geogre 04:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I should check in here and vote Speedy. --Xcali 06:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It has now been blanked by the original author, and re-marked as a speedy candidate on those grounds. However, Critera #A7 reads "Any page which is requested for deletion by the original author, provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake, and the page was edited only by its author." Even if you stretch-interpret the blanking to "mean" "requested for deletion" AND ignore the 'tagging' edits by other Wikipedians, it still fails the "provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake" test, making it not, technically, a speedy candidate, although many admins will delete articles in this case regardless. Thus, I still maintain that the speedy criteria still needs considerable expansion just to reflect common practice even before it can be expanded to provide any relief from the 100+ (and growing) articles/day posted on VfD. Niteowlneils 16:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like to be very clear in saying that I fully agree that SD needs expansion. I always have agreed with that. VfD is more insane than ever -- over 100 articles a day -- so there is no question. I just think that "vanity" shouldn't be a criterion. We'd need to attack the obvious vanity article by another criterion than just its appearance of being about the author. Geogre 19:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I speedied it on the grounds that the author might have thought it was acceptable to create an article on herself, then saw it listed here and realised it should never have been created, thus making it speedyable under the "blanked mistake" criterion. I agree with you that this is not clear-cut and policy needs to be updated to reflect common practice, but this would certainly have been deleted anyway. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:18, 18 Jun 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.