Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco of Alexandria

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. Carried out at 07:41, 7 Jan 2005 by User:Wile E. Heresiarch

[edit] Marco of Alexandria

[I have not individually signed format corrections, including my moving of votes to the start of their respective entries for clarity.----Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

Obvious vanity page with no useful information. Earlier today this page was listed for speedydelete but got reverted by the anon - however its not obvious that criteria for speedydelete apply, so VfD is the correct way to go. -- Solipsist 08:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Verified Information. User:Dr Ali 9:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del. Vanity. Not encyclopedic. Delete. -Slowking Man 10:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Newfoundglory 11:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• The following valid vote was struck thru solely on the excuse of violating etiquette, and has been restored by me. --Jerzy(t) 06:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Delete. Worthless vanity rubbish. Lankiveil 13:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC). [Vote struck thru by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

  VfD etiquette:

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, and civility before adding a comment. [Unsigned by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

• The following valid vote was struck thru solely on the excuse of violating etiquette, and has been restored by me. --Jerzy(t) 06:54, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Delete this horrid vanity page. Phils 13:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Vote struck thru by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

  VfD etiquette:

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, and civility before adding a comment.[Unsigned by 62.135.55.199 17:03, 2005 Jan 4, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
    • This, and the preceding identical complaint, have some basis in the rough language used. But the rough language does not rise to the level of personal attacks, and thus does not justify Dr. Ali's changing of signed contribs under our "remove personal attacks" policy. In fact, IMO even personal attacks would not justify any change other than to
      • Del. [Reason given entails a personal attack, and has been removed pending its author's restatement of their reason for their vote]

    And IMO the time-stamped sig of the user making the excision should be appended, with notations that clearly distinguish which is the exciser's sig and which the intact sig of the voter. (The purpose of VfD is voting, so votes and their sigs must be left clear; an entry with a sig states that the words are those of the signer, so changing them and leaving the sig is forgery.) As to the etiquette aspects, VfD work is onerous, and IMO those who do it regularly (more regularly than i!) deserve some slack when they try to relieve the drone with some purple prose, as long as personal attacks are avoided. "Horrid" and "Worthless ... rubbish" are value judgements, and VfD can't be done without value judgements; my harshest criticism would be that quality is primarily a question for cleanup, and low quality per se is not a ground for VfD. Quality should not be complained about, IMO, without at least lip service to the issue of whether the low quality (in terms of WP's standards of what an article should be and do) is irremediable bcz it is inherant in the concept of the article. But a vote is a vote in any case; it stands despite any bad etiquette, and the remeid is in the hands of the result-caller for this VfD, who is encouraged to take quality of arguments into account, and may slight a vote for low quality of the reasoning, just as they may discard a registered user's vote for apparent sock-puppethood, and should normally discard IP votes (tho listening to IP arguments).

    --Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Rje 13:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del Not a speedy, Delete. --fvw* 19:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Delete. Note to User:Dr Ali, could you please not alter what other people have written in this discussion? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be a speedy because of the link and minimal content. Vanity. Wyss 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No it couldn't, the only CSD criterion that comes close is Very short articles with little or no context, which this obviously isn't. --fvw* 22:06, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and ad. The article seems to exist only as a platform for a web link. The author had also edited Egypt to insert the name and web link, which causes me to doubt that this was in good faith. Shimeru 22:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to abstain. The article that's there now still doesn't quite convince me, but it's much better than the version that was put up for VfD. I'd suggest that the original author, or other supporters, add detail to the article that makes Marco's noteworthiness as an artist more obvious. Shimeru 23:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Egyptian artist who has been exhibited and who has sold paintings to a major international corporation, among others. Article needs bias removed, but subject is notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 22:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really? Then the article should reflect that. Which corporation would you be talking about, for example, and can any reputable source confirm? Delete in current form. JRM 01:39, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) [This struck thru vote is by the user who cast it, who registered their intent to vote "abstain" in an edit stamped "20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)", as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
• Keep. Well, fine Agreed that the Article might need some modification to make it "Encyclopedic"; It's not a vanity article at all, This is a real exhibited Artist as Centauri said and I have been following his work; so maybe the article needs to be redone and I can collect information and do that; all tips and guidlines are welcome. I suggest we * Keep this one and allow it to be modified. Regarding the links in Egypt and Alexandria. I think they are very much in place! As he is an artist in Egypt and Alexandria and to be honest I haven't heard of some of the names mentioned in those Articles. Reem[(User:62.135.55.3)] [02:42 & 02:45, 2005 Jan 2, as noted by Jerzy(t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
  • Anonymous users can't vote I'm afraid. --fvw* 16:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable artist, just another stub awaiting expansion. Imagine if we'd always deleted such articles; Wikipedia would not exist. Dan100 15:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

  Imagine if we'd always keep such articles; Wikipedia would be an advertising board. Notable or not, the current article is just an ad for his website. Delete and start over. I for one can't improve the article, because I'm unable to find external sources on this man's activities. JRM 17:00, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  THE URL HAS BEEN REMOVED ... I don't understand WHY people always think that posting websites = advertsing, in my opinion this is limited thinking ... my bet is that when Dr Ali wrote this Article (or whoever wrote it) he couldn't upload any pictures because he wasn't signed in, so he simply refered to the welsite! Anyway the Website address has been removed and some other changes have been made to the article. KEEP .... I found many pages of other artists that are not as notable as Marco and who have very small articles that INCLUDE EXTERNAL LINKS!! .. examples include Takashi Murakami, Miltos Manetas, Ran Andrews, Dennis Bellone, Dennis Bellone, Louise Bourgeois, Christo, Dr. Hugo Heyrman, Marco Evaristti, and many many many many more!!!!!!! if you Vote to delete Marco of Alexandria's page, I suggest you ALL put those other pages on VOTES as well!! Being unfair is not a good thing and Also writing abusive words as Worthless vanity rubbish. Lankiveil and horrid vanity page. [User:Phils|Phils]] doesn't make the subject less notable but it makes those users less objective and thus less noteworthy. (unisgned comment by User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005)

  You misunderstand. Merely including a URL isn't advertising — having an article that consists of almost nothing but a URL is, or more generally, an article with information coming only from one source, which happens to be the subject. I agree that some votes could be worded more tactfully. Finally: arguments of the form "we have this and therefore we should have this" are not valid; we can't be everywhere at once. Maybe some of those articles should indeed be deleted — or expanded. Unless some of them went through VfD already and created precedent, that has no bearing on this particular vote. Present version is moderately better than the original, if not by much. Giving verifiability the benefit of the doubt in the presence of contributors, and given that I don't vote on notability, I'm abstaining. JRM 20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

  Oh dear, you've picked some bad examples there. Now it is true that Wikipedia has a way to go before it has decent articles on many artists, and I don't immediately recognise all the names on that list, but Louise Bourgeois(!?!) She's one of the top international sculptors today - many people here will know her giant spiders. Christo(!!) The man who wrapped the Reichstag and just about anything else he could lay his hands on. These are artists who anyone with even a passing interest in art would know - I hardly think they are 'less notable'. -- Solipsist 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep [For reasons stated above, beginning "THE URL HAS BEEN REMOVED".] [Refactored from unsigned comment by User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005 by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
• Keep notable artist - I don't see any reason for deletion. Abrahams 01:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity and addition of links to Egypt show commercial aspect --BrianJ48 02:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite: written as vanity, but I strongly suspect notable subject. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity. Artist is author. Wikipedia is not LiveJournal. Cleduc 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Don't make assumptions Artist is not author, But it seems that it is someone who knows of the Artist! 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Left unsigned by 62.135.55.116, whose only conribution is to this VfD. JRM 17:39, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  Has also already voted previously in the anonymous vote signed as Reem (whom the user of this IP in other edits has claimed to be). --fvw* 18:34, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH the MARCO OF ALEXANDRIA article? Why do u keep trying to make sure it doesn't get listed in Wikipedia???? is it something personal? I know that there are 2 Marco paintings in Den Haag, Holland!! is one of them owned by someone you don't like??? This seems very personal!!!!! 62.135.55.116 19:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Don't cross out what others have have written, I am NOT Reem, I am her friend Dina and we are both Students in the Faculty of Arts and we are both followers of Marco's work, and we are all using the same internet cafe that is close to the Faculty of Fine Arts and that is why we have the same Address!! .. If you want to cross something out, cross out your own BIASED remarks. [Unsigned by 62.135.55.116 19:28, 2005 Jan 3, as noted by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

• Delete. The good news; the article has some content now, and it looks like the original author, or a friend, has signed up as User:Abrahams (by the way those images need GFDL or similar copyright tags to avoid deletion). From comments on the article's talk page I was half way convinced that this artist might be notable and despite a shakey start the article could become useful. The bad news; I've been persuaded to do some digging and I can find no evidence of notability. In a Google search on 'Marco of Alexandria', the top three results are all self authored gallery pages - for a notable artist you should be able to find at least one independent reference. www.artfacts.net tends to be pretty inclusive and has plenty of Marco's but no results for Alexandria, similarly www.artcyclopedia.com. The list of international collectors was plausible, but really these could all just be friends from college. The editing behaviour of a number of anon users with very similar IPs doesn't help. I don't know, but without some independent evidence of notability, I'm going to have to go with 'delete'. -- Solipsist 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Some external websites exist!! www.branchesquarterly.com/3.4/Contributors3.4.htm; Marco Of Alexandria - Artist Portfolio at absolutearts.com ... and also there was an exhibition!!!! A Solo Exhibition!! If you will delete this based on the fact that Marco doesnt have enough web space, then you may as well Delete 70% of all the artists mentioned on this website! Anyway, it up to all of you really to make this a Real online Encyclopedia where you can find info About Any REAL entity or just a weak copy of britannica. I will not talk about this again neither me or any of my college friends!! We were all very excited about this new resource we discovered, but it seems that it isnt a resource after all and that it only serves the purpose of a FEW people, God know for what vested interest! How can friends from college exist in different countries, be of different ages, and have completely different careers!!!!!??? Give me a break Puleeeeeeeez! ... The Collectors page is plausible, I wish I could be on it one day! [ 19:28 & 19:38, 2005 Jan 3, as noted by Jerzy(t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]

    Left unsigned by 62.135.55.116. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). JRM 19:48, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  • I checked artfacts.com and it is nothing like wikipedia and does not provide FREE INFORMATION for the sake of Information. No, it is a sponsored site, sponsored by the galleries that are listed on its pages and its main purpose is to promote the works owned by those galleries, and that is why when you check someone like Picasso, you will find that they only show a few unknown pieces of his, simply because there are the pieces available for sale in the sponsoring galleries. They also rank artists according to their value to them!! i.e. which artists have more work shown in sponsoring galleries and thus more dollars into artfacts.com's pockets. The site immediately lost its credibility when i discovered that they didnt rank Vincent Van Gogh among the TOP 100 Artists!!!! but the answer was clear there were only 3 pieces in the sponsoring galleries. I don't think Wikipedia could use such a commercial site to judge who is a notable artist and who is not! Keep 62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [bolding removed] The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an international non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging the GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT and DISTRIBUTION of FREE, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. Wikimedia relies on public donations to meet its goal of providing FREE KNOWLEDGE TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD. [end of removed bolding] == When I read comments like the ones above on vfd pages, I always remember what WikiMedia is all about, and I always realise that those people who opt to delete pages because they don't like them or because their ego got stuck somewhere are the very same people who are against the Wikimedia and Wikipedia mission of [bolding removed] FREE KNOWLEDGE TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD [end of removed bolding] I dont see anything wrong with the page or any reason for its deletion, regardless of whatever has been said on this page, the article itself is valid, informative and encyclopedic!! KEEP 62.240.117.138 22:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep [for reasons stated in response of this date & time beginning "I checked artfacts.com"; refactored from edit signed "62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)" by Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
• Del. Shouting, boldlettering and changing other people's votes are good reasons to vote Delete. RickK 00:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is about the article and not the formatting of this discussion page Mr RickK 62.135.55.131 00:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those are really bad reasons to delete, Rick. It's about the article, not the people who wrote it. I say give it the benefit of the doubt and keep it, but it's pretty borderline.Dr Zen 01:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The last 3 votes include a dialogue which would be more comprehensible if the two replies were indented below the vote they are responding to. (And the votes made as separate single-bullet points, of course.) Rick's argument is not fully developed, but i think i grasp his drift, and i agree: the abusive and even dishonest tactics of the supporters betray insecurity about the unvarnished facts carrying the day. So the tactics are evidence of inadequate notability. --Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Borderline Delete. As far as I can understand, notability is the issue here. Progress towards establishing notability on the article's talk page has not satisfied me that the artist is notable: I would like to see further proof (ie references) to show the artist's notability. I managed to find http://www.alexmarco.com/ex.html but I don't see why one single exhibition renders an artist worthy of an article. The quote don't add much to the article in my opinion either. I have to say that the heated anonymous keep comments (which approach flaming) here do not help the case to keep. If the article is to be kept it needs NPOVing, expansion, distancing from the artist and further proof of notability ie with references. Having said that, the artist might be notable (at least from his own website). But this VfD discussion is about the article and in it's current state I am not satisfied that is is suitable for inclusion. Request: would the users in the 62.136.66.xxx segment please read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Grox 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you would have more success in establishing notability via the internet if you understood Arabic. Or perhaps an artist from a developing country doesn't need to have the same web presence as an American artist to be notable. Philip 13:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I accept that might be true; perhaps you might like to provide links to Arabic sites for the purpose of verification/translations rather than nebulous assertions. Perhaps you might even agree to translate them for us or you could put them up for translation. I agree that web presence is not always proportional to notability however in my experience the two are directly proportional. Are there any books which mention Marco's art? If so, why don't we have ISBNs/titles/authors? That would help the keep case somewhat. Printed literature? Newspapers/art journals? Having said that, web presence is not the only thing that I am basing my delete vote on. Just because one company buys someone's art does not make them notable. Example: my friend's mum paints as a hobby and has been bought by BHP Billiton amongst others. Does that make her notable? No. Grox 11:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know Arabic. I was not intending to make "nebulous assertions" but what I thought were quite significant points about the difference between developed/English speaking World articles and other articles. There are some people on here who seem to think that not being famous in America makes someone not notable. This guy is an established professional artist. IMO that makes him at least as notable as some actor in a trashy TV series that a few hundred thousand people watch. Philip 03:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Your point about Wikipedia's English-speaking world bias is not a new one. I accept it as valid. A least the keep vote lobby could provide real proof that he is notable - even if it isn't online or in English. I do not accept that just being an "established professional artist" makes one notable. The people who chalk up pavements with beautiful pictures in Melbourne are by your standard "established professional artists" but this does not make them notable or deserving of a Wikipedia entry. I for one will change my vote to keep if proof of notability is provided. [Sig omitted by Grox, 03:54, 2005 Jan 7, as noted by Jerzy(t) 05:55, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)]
          • I can provide proof of Notability. In The March 2004 issue of Al-Qahira Newspaper (translates to Cairo) which is the Leading (only as far as I know) cultural newspaper in Egypt, there was an article about Marco's one man show which was held in the same March! I dont think the paper is available online, but I could send xerox copies of the one I have to anyone who is interested. (its in Arabic of course) Omar Filini 04:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I mean can you believe that this "Encyclopedia" contains a full-length article on Cosmo Kramer and that some voting is going on in Favor of Keeping Dogfart and you people here are actually considering deleting a notable artist like Marco, simple because you don't know whether or not he is notable since he comes from Faraway Land! Yet a Fictionous Character like Kramer is Notable and occupies a whole page on Wikipedia? I mean I love Cosmo, he is the only character on Seinfeld that makes me laugh; but Guess What?!!? He isn't real, Marco is!! And then the people fighting to keep Dogfart on Wikipedia, I don't see any of the names that voted to delete Marco voting to delete the porn entry of Dogfart!! I guess Porm means more to the Western WikiPedia, than an Artist from the Middle East! Oh or is it a Global Wikipedia? I cannot be so sure anymore. Omar Filini 04:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He has a website that isn't in his native language, and has sold to collectors in at least five countries. The corporate collector listed is BAT which is a British company with a market capitalisation of nearly $40 billion. It's best to give the benefit of the doubt on notability when you don't know the subject area, and I doubt that any of the people who have voted to delete know enough about the Egyptian art scene to express a valid opinion on the issue. Philip [13:12 & 13:13, 2005 Jan 5, as noted by Jerzy(t) 09:43, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
  • I'd like to point out the fallacy of arguing that purchases by a major corporation (with a market capitalisation of nearly $40 billion, no less) says anything about this artist. Corporations will buy anything to put on the walls; indeed, the larger the art budget the more likely that they'll sweep up something truly insignificant. Next time you're in a corporate office take a look around. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I was responding to an earlier poster who wanted to know about his clients Philip 03:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I doubt that BAT sends its staff wandering through the back streets and garrets of third world countries in order to "sweep up" bad art for their boardrooms. They are likely to buy from galleries, and any artist whose work has been exhibited and sold in a gallery is notable.--Centauri 03:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really. Thery buy from wholesalers who buy in bulk, not for quality. RickK 06:15, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • In real estate the rule is "there's no such thing as an unsaleable house, there are just overpriced houses." Although there is such a thing as unsalable art, the ability to sell your art if the price goes low enough does not make you notable. Especially since, as Rick notes, art is today a commodity where size and dominant color relative to the rest of the planned decor can easily trump artistic merit. --Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
• Keep i dont belive it would be a great ide to remove this post because i think an artist sould be able to express his information freely, and it souldnt matter if it where a painting other Pracket 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually I came here and started browsing Egypt sites and doing searches on names of Egyptian Towns, historical figures and contemporary artists! I did a search on Marco and was really glad I found him and then I was shocked that some people voted to delete his page!! I really don't understand why or what those people mean by Vanity!!!!!!!!! I see no vanity in that page, just neutral information about the Artist which is all accurate to the best of my knowledge. In fact after my vote I will try to refine the article a bit more, as I think that I might know another fact about Marco that isn't written in the article. Omar, 217.29.133.200 01:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Del. May be, or turn into, a notable artist, but the standard is verifiability, and by no means "the benefit of the doubt" or a begged-for "break". If you can't prove it in a language we can easily get translated, your recourse is to work toward publicity in the languages we can use for verification. (But don't try to use WP for that publicity.) --Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  • This is supposed to be a global encyclopedia. No one owes it to you to conduct a publicity campaign in one of your list of approved languages. Philip 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a global encyclopedia. Everyone owes it to WP to use its resources in a reasonable way, or go start their own project with their own resources. Our monetary resources are limited, but generally adequate to cover our hardware needs and unable to cover hired personnel. Because en: is a volunteer English-language 'pedia, its human resources are generous in the line of English-speaking editors, limited in editors bilingual in English and the languages of industrialized countries, and near zero in editors bilingual in English and the languages of less-developed countries.

    WP is worthless if we don't limit our content to what is verifiable. That combined with our human-resource mix enforces some degree of undercoverage on our contents. If people who have skills we are short in don't want to provide them, that doesn't make them bad people. But people who want us to sacrifice verifiability in order to reduce undercoverage by sacrificing our verifiability criteria are doomed to frustration.

    --Jerzy(t) 06:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

• Delete, neither the article nor the discussion here provides any evidence of notability. RadicalSubversiv E 13:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the only claims to notability found so far comes from anonymous users who are acting in an untrustworthy way. If the person really were notable that fact probably would have turned up by now. DreamGuy 22:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you assume that? How many Egyptian artists and art collectors do you think monitor this page? This is supposed to me a global encyclopaedia, not an Anglosphere one. Philip 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Commment. Material headed "****This was found on Solipsist's Talk page under the Heading Marco of Alexandria!" has been removed here. At present it is either an unfocused personal attack, or material of no known relevance to this already overly long page. It is appropriate for any material justified by prima-facie evidence of non-personal-attack relevance to appear here, but for now the material in question should be viewed, by those with enough interest, at User talk:Solipsist#Cleanup of his VfD. Careful researchers will also read the beginning of the dialogue it is part of at User talk:Jerzy#VfD Marco of Alexandria

--Jerzy(t) 06:30, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Tally

As of 17:21, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

• Delete
  1. Solipsist 08:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
  2. Wyss 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Graham ☺ | Talk 19:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. fvw* 19:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
  5. Slowking Man 10:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Newfoundglory 11:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Lankiveil 13:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC).
  8. Phils 13:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Rje 13:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Megan1967 03:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Already counted as voting as #1: Solipsist 19:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Solipsist points out in the summary of an edit (that fixed this in a less explicit manner) that i (Jerzy(t)) counted both the nomination and the immediately above explicit vote, whereas Solipsist considered the nom as falling short of a vote. In any case, we agree that Jerzy(t) previously counted two votes from Solipsist, and should not have. --Jerzy(t) 16:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  12. Cleduc 07:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. RickK 00:35, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Grox 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) ("Borderline")
  15. Jerzy(t) 10:46, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
  16. RadicalSubversiv E 13:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  18. Neutrality^talk 22:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  19. DreamGuy 22:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (presumably qualified users)
  1. Centauri 22:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dan100 15:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dr Zen 01:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Philip 13:12 & 13:13, 2005 Jan 5
• Keep (IPs and short-term users)
  1. User:Dr Ali 9:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (7 edits over 31 minutes; last was the one on this page, politely not called a pair of forgeries, at 19:49, 2005 Jan 1)
     • [The "pair of forgeries" comment next to that vote was by me in my edit of 09:43, 2005 Jan 6, where i did the tallies. It was not utterly objective, and a bit out of place in that otherwise technical and (i think) opinion-free edit; added to that, i then proceeded to explicitly address, in my next edit at 10:46, 2005 Jan 6, "the changing of others'" votes in the same 'graph with "forgery", potentially causing confusion about who thought the term "forgery" had been not been used, and when. --Jerzy(t) 16:33, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)]
  2. Reem[(User:62.135.55.3)] 02:42 & 02:45, 2005 Jan 2
  3. User:62.135.55.192 on 19:17 & 20:44, 2 Jan 2005
  4. Abrahams 01:55, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC) (13 edits over 56 minutes)
  5. Dina, 62.135.55.116 17:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (has shared an IP with Reem)
  6. 62.240.117.138 22:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. 62.114.188.45 04:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. 62.135.55.131 00:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Pracket 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) (only edit)
  10. Omar, 217.29.133.200 01:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain
  1. Shimeru 23:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) (cancelling 22:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) vote)
  2. JRM 20:58, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) (cancelling 01:39, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) vote)

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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.