Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Piconjo

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 {{{1}}}. delete. —Xezbeth 20:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piconjo

• Delete, vanity page.-gadfium (talk) 04:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 07:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 07:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• And when he builds that revolution, we can talk. Until then let's oppress that revolution with a tyrannical Delete —ExplorerCDT 07:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• delete Melaen
• Speedy Delete as spam. Wyss 22:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You seriously need to read the speedy deletion cases, dude. Dr Zen 23:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uhm... dude!? Anyway, spam is a form of Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is a case for speedy deletion. I interpret this article not as innocent vanity, but as a blatant, bad-faith attempt by Mr Piconjo to promote himself as a flash artist with pure advertising copy. That's spam and therefore a candidate for speedy deletion under article 4. Wyss 03:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. For whatever reason, I assumed you were a guy. But please also read the policy page on vandalism, which clearly defines spam in this context. You might also find this useful. You'll see that this is not "spam" by either definition but simply an advertisement, for which the process is to be deleted through VfD. Dr Zen 04:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Piconjo seems to fit the definition of both spam and vandalism... (it was my surprise that you address any 'stranger' as dude that inspired my reaction :) Wyss 14:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• delete --Alphachimp 01:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I am neither Piconjo, nor a fan, nor a cohort. I am just a regular Wikipedian minding his own business. I just want to make that clear to everyone before this article bites the dust. I'm not too hopeful for its survival but I do have a few things to get off my chest.

"Obvious vanity"? "A blatant, bad-faith attempt by Mr Piconjo to promote himself"? How is it BLATANTLY OBVIOUS? Due to the fact that you hate him? I find it amusing that your bias sways you to assume that there are so few people who think Piconjo has talent that only the man himself would write an article about it. The text is not pro-Piconjo, and before the REAL Piconjo fans started adding their spin on events it was actually somewhat ANTI-Piconjo. I believe that YOU are applying bad faith by taking such a dim view to contributours. I could say with equally bad faith that maybe YOU are Legendary Frog fans and your only reason to have this article removed is because you hate Piconjo's guts. But that's probably incorrect, just as wrong as you are about me. Maybe the article isn't good enough for Wikipedia - that's fine, I wasn't to know. It was all done in good innocent faith, no malicious intent involved. Don't go injecting your own prejudice into the situation.

• Guest: I am a guest user who has contributed some information to this guide. I have to agree with the above user.

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.