Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Driscoll

 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. jni 11:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John Driscoll
A vanity page - this programmer has done nothing I can see that is particularly noteworthy of Wikipedia. Delete. Nick04 11:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.
 * What if people want to look me up? I think the page is pretty honest. Leave it here for people to research me until another John Driscoll rises to significance and the page is needed. I vote for NOT deleting this entry.
 * Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having info about yourself on wikipedia, it just belongs on your user page. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a page about myself of Wikipedia, because I've done nothing particularly noteworthy. If people want to find out about me, they can Google and visit my own personal website, or visit my user page...hence this VFD, to see if other people agree with my viewpoint and think this page is not noteworthy enough to be included. Nick04 11:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The usual sort of vanity crap. Author also removed the VfD tag. jni 11:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Approve! This guy rocks and I use his company every day
 * Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Article creator has also vandalized this page. Lupo 11:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Approve, this guy's photo dating site helped me find my wife and we now have two kids. I owe everything to this guy!
 * Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Approve, this guy has been on TV, interviewed by the UK's Richard and Judy, as well as Des O Connor!
 * Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear vanity. andy 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * del. vanity. and the fact that i have to resubmit my edit because he keeps editing the vfd is irritating. Avriette 12:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You know the headline that last night someone slept with Claire Danes? That was this guy!
 * Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- One more can't hurt. Longhair 13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete phony. Gazpacho 13:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. While I normally don't bother voting "delete" on vanity articles (they will eventually be deleted anyway), I hate the way the author desperately tries to astroturf the VfD. If you're going to masquerade as several different people, at least vary the style. Making every comment like "Approve, this guy cured world hunger" makes me not know whether to laugh or cry.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 13:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, This fiasco. Inter 14:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Approve! (of deletion, that is) . Radiant! 16:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable vanity (to say nothing of the vfd reversions and rampant sockpuppeting)--InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten by the ever avuncular Uncle G. This subject has made me temporarily reverse my decision not to waste my time voting on vanity pages that are clearly going to make it to the trashcan without my vote. Frankly, this guy will never be notable as he has not even been smart enough to hide the fact that he created this page and every single keep vote on the VfD page. What kind of network programming guru would be that clue-free? Delete, please. HyperZonktalk 17:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Leave it here for people to research me until another John Driscoll rises to significance and the page is needed. &mdash; Well that didn't take long to happen. Rewritten article about a John Driscoll who, looking at the list of publications on the Federal Reserve web site, his home page, and IDEAS, may well pass the average professor test. See what you think. Weak Keep. Uncle G 17:54, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per Uncle G's rewrite. Incidentally, the original John Driscoll's vdf vandalism amused me. Childish vandalism, but amusing nonetheless. DaveTheRed 19:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The edits by Uncle G are helpful, but still, what makes this figure notable and encyclopedic?  Which barometer are we using this week?  No vote.  GRider\talk 19:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The correct thing for Uncle G to have done would have been to have (1) written the article about "John Driscoll (economist)" as a new article, if he actually believes the Federal Reserve Bank economist is notable; (2) redirected the article originally under discussion to "John Driscoll (programmer)";  (3) created a disambiguation page betweeen the JD two articles; (4) patched up the VfD so that we were discussing the deletion of "John Driscoll (programmer)".     Better yet, he might have waited until after the original article was deleted, then written a new article on the economist, which would have saved effort on the disambiguation page and the patching up, wouldn't have changed the subject of the vote in mid-stream; and finally would have saved the admin who implements the vote some trouble.    If he had done that, it might have occurred to him after the programmer article was deleted that the economist, although more notable than the other guy, isn't that notable either.  What he has instead done has been to preempt the process for forming a consensus on whether the original John Driscoll article was vanity.    Perhaps it was, but that is what we were in the process of deciding.   Uncle G, who is in other respects a great Wikipedia contributor with whom I am almost always in agreement, thinks it is amusing to swoop in and change the subject of (alleged) vanity articles while they are waiting to be deleted.   I can see why he thinks this is fun, but I don't think it is fair to do that until the original article has received its 5 days in court.  If one person can decide that an article is vanity, then that person should be an administrator authorized to speedy-delete it.   That authority was voted on recently and was not granted to administrators.   The extra few days of waiting through the full VfD doesn't cost anything, and not waiting makes it seem as though the deletionists (which includes me, I guess) are in a big hurry to remove stuff from the Wikipedia.    I realize I'm not making much headway with this argument.   It is probably going to take Uncle G screwing around with an article that he thinks is vanity where others do not agree before he gets my point.  And this is most likely not that article.  Nevertheless, I make the point again.   My vote: Delete the article.  The original version on JD #1 was vanity.   The current version by Uncle G on JD #2 is about a government economist who does not pass the average professor test. --BM 19:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree on all counts. Whether this is a good article now or not, this was clearly crossing the line. This can't be allowed to become a trend. --InShaneee 00:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The solution here would be to write the new article on the Talk page, so others can comment on or add to it. If the current nominated VfD article goes under, simply add the new article from the Talk page. If it is an entirely different individual/topic it can't really be classed as article recreation. I've done so below with the Hatchling article. Megan1967 03:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither Driscoll is notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This guy is nobody, who will ever want to look up this old mothball?
 * Delete - You all have managed to warp this article and VFD into a twisted pile of your own bile, that is at times cutting and nasty, and has no relevance to the original article this may or may not have been about, especially as it no longer exists.
 * Note: Above 2 comments by user 212.57.245.105. --InShaneee 04:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)