Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piconjo

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, apparently. (Someone didn't close the AFD properly.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piconjo

Delete, nn-bio. Titoxd(?!?) 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn-bio per nom. --Gaff 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. android79 17:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and Protect this has been deleted a dozen times already after a previous VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It is, in fact, not a substantially similar recreation of the old article. After the anonymous author started vandalizing VfU with requests to undelete the original article (and threats to continue vandalizing until he got what he wanted), I blocked him and made him a deal: to be unblocked, he was to rescind the threat, write a NPOV treatment of the subject and abide by the community's consensus if it ended up at AfD again, and also not commit any more vandalism. To my knowledge, he has concentrated only on improving this article and has not messed with VfU or anything else. (I can't remember which IP he was editing from at the time; I'll find diffs if requested.) This should be allowed to remain on AfD for a full discussion. android79 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • See User talk:206.176.119.180 for the deal. Vandalism warnings from today don't appear to be for this editor. android79 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the background. I agree that the articles aren't the same, though I'd still consider this reasonable speedy-fodder as A7 nn-bio. Doesn't hurt to let it wait out its time here though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It wasn't identical, so I decided it might be better for it to be AFD'd than CSD'd. Titoxd(?!?) 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -Doc (?) 22:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete. He's evil is very real. -- Nobody man

  • Delete as non-notable, despite his (tragic) death. I would consider this a borderline speedy candidate under other circumstances. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's good that the editor is now trying to contribute according to Wikipedia rules, but unfortunate that a tragic death does not necessarily confer notability. If he signed up for an account, would userfication be acceptable? -- Kjkolb 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably not, since (as the subject is dead) this is presumably someone else entirely. It wouldn't really be user-page info, and would probably be seen as an end-run against well-established AfD consensus. Still, that doesn't mean there's nowhere in the world this could be put... I wonder if Comixpedia takes articles about Flash animators. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per A Man in Black. Plus, the article seems hoaxish and unverifiable, in that one part says "Evidence points out that he might not even be a person, but maybe a shared account", but another flatly lists a date and cause of death. Hmmmph. MCB 23:02, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.