Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asia Cat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Asia Cat was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to delete.
Non-notable feline. Zachlipton 06:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't this what speedy deletion is for? Delete, of course. Hoary 06:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My understanding is that speedy deletion is for just garbage entries and the like. Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. Zachlipton 06:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, there you are -- how is some proud owner's article about her new moggies not a garbage entry? Why should we be so squeamish -- it's not as if a "speedy" would be a suggestion to zap the moggies themselves. (If I now decide to create a lucid and neutral article about the lunch I've just eaten, would deleting this require a totting up of votes for and against? Say it ain't so. Oh, and here's something else: my article about my lunch, like this about the moggies, is a matter of original research.) Hoary 07:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion is extremely limited. It applies only in an enumerated list of cases at Wikipedia:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#The_cases. Various alternative deletion mechanisms have been suggested and voted on, but so far none have been put to use. — David Remahl 07:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, there you are -- how is some proud owner's article about her new moggies not a garbage entry? Why should we be so squeamish -- it's not as if a "speedy" would be a suggestion to zap the moggies themselves. (If I now decide to create a lucid and neutral article about the lunch I've just eaten, would deleting this require a totting up of votes for and against? Say it ain't so. Oh, and here's something else: my article about my lunch, like this about the moggies, is a matter of original research.) Hoary 07:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete...Not speedy. — David Remahl 06:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A great cat. This shouldn't be deleted.
- [Posted unsigned by 24.16.35.135 above Zachlipton's original comment; I moved it down here. —tregoweth 07:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)]
- Delete without a doubt. If this isn't a speedy deletion, then the policy needs to be expanded. There is no reasonable basis for keeping this article. Postdlf 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks speedy-worthy to me. —tregoweth 07:31, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Blatant vandalism, speedy case #3. See the author's contributions and talk page: [1] . Nevermind original research, vanity, etc... - RedWordSmith 07:37, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, it is possible that this is a good faith article from a reformed author. Looking at Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is referenced by #3, the only possibly matching type of vandalism is "silly vandalism". I guess, given the editor's history it can be called an extended newbie test, by someone who has been warned but I don't think it's a clear-cut case. — David Remahl 07:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. What happened to the vote with preliminary deletion? If this isn't a speedy it would be nice to be able to get rid of it at least a bit more quickly. -R. fiend 08:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business" or your cat either. Kappa 09:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This is an obvious delete as an unverifiable "vanity" article. It is not a speedy delete according to any of the specific cases. It is also not blatant vandalism according to the way we use that term. Comment: We have tried repeatedly to define a case that would allow for the speedy deletion of obvious vanity articles. Every proposal so far has been rejected as causing more harm than good. If you feel strongly that this article ought to be a speedy candidate, I encourage you to review the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion and propose on how we can reliably distinguish between vanity articles and stub articles on obscure topics. Rossami (talk) 15:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: This is an obvious delete. Both Niteowlneils and I have attempted to come up with new criteria. The wonderful demos was sure that it was all an evil plot. <shrug> This has to stay and go through VfD. Geogre 16:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I still don't get why not a speedy? --Woggly 12:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's finally been speedied by someone with a very liberal interpretation of the speedy cases. It's not patent nonsense, nor vandalism, because it is coherent. The patent nonsense case (the way I read it) is for content like "fgffgfgfgfgfg" or "Mark and very did jiggling of having day bad". Rosammi and David R provided the links to the cases. What people don't seem to realize is that, at least most attempts to expand the speedy cases are NOT really changes to how Wikipedia operates, but simply try to get the deletion policies more in line with current practice. Check out my examples at User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/--most would be deleted under current practice, but none of them are speedy candidates according the way I read the current policies. (FWIW, the contents of Asia cat were "Asia is a young cat that was born on April 15th, 2002, with her brother, Magwi Cat. Charming, young Asia and her brother live with two great owners in the suburbs of Seattle, Washington. These two great kittens came from Meow Cat Rescue, located in Washington.") Niteowlneils 23:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages 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.
