Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Pratt

Susan Pratt 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 keep the article.

In itself deserving of article, but might be by User:B-Movie_Bandit. I'm putting it here to clear up confusion.


 * Bingo. That's who it is.  Check the original listing and check the echo of the title in the edit summary.  These things are like a klieg light on the new pages section.  I've added the IP to the list and the number fits in rather nicely with past addresses.  Oh, and delete while we're at it. - Lucky 6.9 01:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What does it matter who it might be by? Subject is deserving of an article, so keep. Gzornenplatz 01:55, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject is certainly worthy of an article but I believe that this isn't it, at least in its present form.  With all due respect, one-and-a-half sentences don't ring the bell, IMO.  I'd be 100% for keeping it if it was expanded.  Wouldn't be the first one of these to actually turn into a good (or even a great) article. - Lucky 6.9 01:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What's the point in deleting it? That won't create a better article. One-and-a-half sentences is more than nothing. Gzornenplatz 02:03, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly better now that you've formatted and expanded it. Nice work.  I've done a slew of these things in the past and I simply didn't want to do another.  I was going to paste a substub tag on it but it was posted here before I could.  It's still a little bit thin and understandably so.  However, I'm confident it'll grow before the end of the discussion. - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I give. I expanded it a bit.  :^)  Changing vote to keep and expand new stub. - Lucky 6.9 02:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep after all the work that's been done on it, but this is the point. The B-Movie Bandit is a phenomenon under separate discussion.  Essentially, it creates such vaccuums of information that none of its articles can stand, and therefore it directs all our editors' time to clean up.  Leaving them in place makes us useless as an encyclopedia, and only, in my experience, the people with a strong conscience and concern for our usefulness get upset about them.  The BMB is an insult to every Wikipedian who researches, who cares about her or his prose, who cites sources, and having its work kept is an active discouragement to all those who work hard on their articles. Geogre 04:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So send the B-movie Bandit to arbitration and get her banned. Then all articles written solely by the B-movie Bandit will be candidates for speedy deletion.  Personally I will oppose banning a user simply because she creates stubs. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Good save, keep &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  05:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep after the nice rework. I gotta tell you guys, everytime I hear the term "B-Movie Bandit" I think of some strange Hamburglar-esque character, working to annoy everyone with random substubs and hamburger theft. Eventually, though, he is foiled by the dedicated Wikipedians, the Ronald McDonalds of the encyclopedia, if you will. Ian Pugh 06:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * LOL! That's a riot!  If there's a picture of the Hamburglar on that link, I'm gonna put it on the Bandit's page!  We now have a face to go with the name!!  Ian, you made my day. - Lucky 6.9 19:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep current version. RickK 21:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "B-movie bandit" articles should not be deleted ad-hominem unless/until there is an arbitration ruling or other properly instituted ban against her. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, Jimbo Wales himself said the Bandit substubs could and should be speedy deleted. That isn't an ad hominem attack.  It's a way of dealing with a vandal or troll.  He stopped short of making it official.  Still, that's the guy paying the server fees.  As for arbitration, there isn't much to arbitrate.  The individual doesn't answer any inquiries and a seven-day block didn't work either.  At least the tide of these things has stemmed considerably. - Lucky 6.9 21:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo said it's OK, then I guess it's OK (I would be interested in seeing such a declaration). But it's most certainly ad hominem ("Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason") to delete a stub based on who created it.  Arbitration, along with declaration by Jimbo or the board, or community consensus is the way to ban an alleged "vandal or troll".  Unilateral deletion by admins is not the way to do it. anthony&#35686;&#21578; 00:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sheesh! As if Jimbo were God himself.  I don't care who said it, I think deleting articles based on who started them rather than their wikipedia potential is the wrong way to go about it.  The Steve  02:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, articles edited solely by a banned user can be deleted, and Jimbo has the power to ban users. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, since this has been signficantly expanded since the alleged "B-movie bandit" created it, it's not a candidate for deletion based on being an article "created and edited solely by a banned user after they were banned, unless the user has been unbanned". anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct regarding the current state of the article. I've expanded it and changed my vote accordingly.  Jimbo weighed in over at the Bandit's discussion page if you're interested.  For the record, here's the original Susan Pratt article (italics mine):  Actress Susan Pratt stars in soaps such as General Hospital, Guiding Light and All My Children.  One itty-bitty presumptive sentence and nothing more.  Even the verb tense is wrong.  Every one of this person's non-contributions have been similar. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just because it's irritating: I have to make a correction, here.  "Ad hominem" is "about the man" rather than "about the issues."  An "ad hominem" argument is any argument that debates the person rather than the issues.  Thus, an "ad hominem" could in fact be done with flattery.  "Well, I'd like to oppose the death penalty, too, but not everyone can be as compassionate and fair-minded as you, Susan" would be an ad hominem.  It isn't about arguing as a person or to personal needs.  Those are covered by other rhetorical terms (e.g. "argumentum ad populis" for the bias of the crowds).  Geogre 02:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is in response to, but no one ever said there was an ad hominem attack or an ad hominem argument. I pointed out that this was an ad hominem deletion request, because deletion was requested based on who created the article rather than on the article itself.  Deletion of articles based on who created them is only allowed for banned users, and even then it's controversial and only supposed to be applied when the banned user made the only contributions to the article. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate -- [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:54, 15 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.