Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Britton

John Britton 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 the article and move John Leslie Britton to this title.

Clearly a simple vanity page. Man I wish vanity was a speedy. No kidding, I mean this article is worthless, and it's a waste of my time reporting it. Anyway, vote delete for me, eh? - Vague Rant 06:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a newbie test page. Other two contributions of this IP are just editing experiments. jni 06:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete despite his awesomeness. Gamaliel 06:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Keep the fixed version. utcursch 08:26, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * More awful than awesome. Speedy delete if policy allows, else delete. Pnot 09:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a speedy deletion candidate alas, though there is a proposal for making obvious vanity candidates for speedy deletion. See Speedy deletion --fvw 09:23, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious vanity. And obviously not a speedy. And relax, folks. We've had perfectly genuine cases of people who had a lousy stub article created for them that looked like obvious vanity, and three days or so into VfD someone recognized them as notable and the article got fixed. That's exactly what VfD is for. Wikipedia isn't going to come to an end if this page stays up for a few more days. Just vote "delete" and move on. I wonder if he's any relation to Nan Britton, the Monica Lewinsky of the 1920s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: What Dpbsmith says is true. However, I don't recall any of them being quite so obvious.  The Managed Delete and the Early Delete proposals would have set up a kind of queue for these things so that the worthy were plucked out.  That being rejected, there's nothing for it but 7 days active and up to 7 inactive.  I will at least nowiki his site.  Geogre 14:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - maybe we can add "use of the word awesome as a speedy criterion." --jpgordon{gab} 15:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verifiable. We need a tag.  Fixed.  Keep.  anthony &#35686;&#21578;
 * interesting approach -- fix a vanity article about XYZ by replacing it with an article about a completely different John Britton -- who also happens to be almost completely non-notable. --jpgordon{gab} 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Almost completely non-notable". Interesting phrase. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Britton is called a "Famous prime-researching mathematician" by The Prime Pages. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep fixed version. Notable enough.  Niceguyjoey 02:02, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * N.B. Note that what Anthony has done is not acceptable.  He has created a new article by blanking an old one.  He did not correct an article or add to it.  He replaced it while on VfD.  His article should be moved to John Britton (mathematician), as it is a separate article from this one.  All votes prior to his change should remain in force.  I'm glad he can Google and find a John Britton who might be worthy.  He should write more articles and people he finds to write about, but this action was an attempt at disrupting VfD.  He didn't "fix" this article:  he wrote a new one. Geogre 04:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know, things much like this happen all the time. Is this really much different than what happened with Fabrication below? Or when something is made a redirect to an unrelated entity whose title happens to fit the bill? Also, if he had written a John Britton (mathematician) page we would likely soon have a page so named but not a John Britton page, which seems silly to me. You are right though, it does lend some confusion on the voting page, and either makes earlier votes void for voting on a completely different page, or makes them apply to a page which is totally different, both of which present serious problems. Isn't this a problem with a more legitimate fix as well? I do tend to think this solution is preferable to having that vanity page sitting around for 5 days though. Maybe there's a good solution to this? -R. fiend 06:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This action was an attempt to improve Wikipedia, not to disrupt VfD. I thought the whole point of VfD was to make Wikipedia not look bad by having crappy content.  But you suggest we keep the crappy content around for 5 days?  If I were an admin, and I had speedied the article and then recreated it no one would complain, but since I don't have admin powers I instead replaced it.  You can keep the votes in place, but that's just stupid.  Just remove the friggen thing from VfD.  Why do we have to be so damn anal about this?  If you want you can speedy the original and leave a message on my talk page and I'll readd my version.  But to say that what I did was an attempt at disruption is a bold faced lie. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've put the rewrite at John Leslie Britton. Now will someone just speedy delete John Britton, and move John Leslie Britton there.  Geogre.  Please.  Find something more productive to do with your time.  *Sigh*.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anthony! While I think that it's better you did what you did later, I don't think you had any malicious intent in your earlier action. --Improv 21:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep and redirect to John Leslie Britton Paul August 19:34, Nov 13, 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.