Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2

This is part of Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

2 (unsourced biographies)

 * Biographical articles that do not explicitly cite a source; and that are about persons who now are (or now would be, were they still alive) aged 25 or under, or whose age is not given and cannot be inferred from the article to be over 25 now. should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.


 * Citing sources should be interpreted broadly in this context, and include informal citations. An external hyperlink to a web site about the person, a pointer to news coverage of the person, and an ISBN reference to a book written by the person (which is presumed to contain an "author autobiography" of some kind) all count as citing a source of biographical information, for example.
 * Where a date of birth is not given, reasonable inferences should be drawn from what is given in the article. A subject who has been married for 30 years and a subject who was elected to public office 15 years ago both must be over 25, for example.
 * Regardless of age at death, virtually all historical people would not be deleted by this proposal, since they would be over 25 years old were they still alive today.
 * The age limit is somewhat arbitrary, but has been proven to eliminate a substantial number of false positives.
 * For a case study, please read User:Uncle G/Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Unsourced biographies.
 * This proposal partially overlaps proposal 1. That is not in and of itself a problem; individual articles can fall under multiple speedy criteria (e.g. a one-sentence attack page about an unremarkable website).
 * If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

[ vote] – discuss

Votes
'''This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).'''

Support

 * 1) Although I'd prefer to see dead people excluded from this criteria. Pburka 4 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
 * 2) A и D я 01D TALK EMAIL July 4, 2005 15:59 (UTC)
 * 3) Puzzled by the age thing, I see no need for that distinction, but proposal is much better than status quo and has my support. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
 * 4) I presume the age thing arises for two reasons.  To be honest, most people haven't accomplished much by the time they're twenty-five.  (There are some notable exceptions, of course.)  Second, most of the vanity junk is inserted by young people with too much time on their hands.  (Young people with too much time on their hands also contribute a lot of good stuff, but we're not going to delete those articles.)  Plus there's Uncle G's empirical evidence that it would work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 4 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)   > (not a vote) Thanks - that explains it nicely.Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
 * 5) I trust admins will apply obvious common sense, but Uncle G's study shows this will get rid of lots of crud. DES 4 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
 * 6) If we can't trust our admins on this, we just need better admins. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
 * 7) Uncle G's case study convinced me to try it, but I worry about actors and performers who can often become notable at a young age. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:42 (UTC)
 * 8) It reads odd to me, but I see what it's saying. humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
 * 9) Imagine the load that will be taken off VfD... Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
 * 10) nixie 4 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
 * 11) impressed by the study supporting it JesseW 5 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support, per A D Monroe III's reason, but I think that we need to specify that if the subject of the article has been cited by (not just local) news media, then they are not a speedy candidate. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
 * 13) The empirical evidence backing this up are utterly convincing (even if the age thing is a little arbitrary). -Splash July 5, 2005 00:35 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree with Splash. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
 * 15) Uncle G's case study strongly suggests allowing admins to speedy this class of article will not result in articles being deleted that would otherwise have been kept. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 01:58 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, with faith that admins will seek to confirm notabilty before bringing down the hatchet (and with knowledge that the hatchet needs frequent swinging). -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 01:59 (UTC)
 * 17) Weak support - not everyone gets a book written about them. Still a good idea though. Alphax τεχ 5 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
 * 18) *See the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 19) Yes. If a person is of limited notability, the verifiablity is of major issue. But the phrasing "do not explicitly cite" must be amended by "or the source is not readily available" (I do really hate VfD nominators who are too lazy to run a google search first.) mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
 * 20) gadfium 5 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * 21) Brilliant proposal from Uncle G. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
 * 22) Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
 * 23) Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)
 * 24) Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
 * 25) Conditional. Subject to the inclusion of mikka's additional phrase (see above). &mdash;Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
 * 26) Support after reading Uncle G's excellent analysis. --G Rutter 5 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. It shouldn't take a week to get rid of what everyone is going to vote delete on anyway. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, proposal is backed by solid research. Mr Bound July 5, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Research is solid. This takes out college and high school vanities, which are by far the most common types; thus the age limit is not arbitrary, but eminently practical. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - A step in the right direction, but I still support Proposal 1 as well. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
 * 32) Weak support pending test run. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:23 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. This is one kind of article that ought to be speedied. --Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 04:54 (UTC)
 * 35) Conditional support, only if Mikka's restriction (see above) is added. Sietse 6 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. I haven't yet seen any examples of articles this would fail to work properly on and it's exceedingly unlikely that something meeting this criteria would be deleted which shouldn't have.   Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
 * 39) ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
 * 40) Support with  mikka's provision.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)
 * 41) Weak support with mikka's addition. This would catch vanity articles, and is likely to generate better biographical articles because sources are now established. However, the definition of "sources" should be very generous. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
 * 42) &mdash; Dan | Talk 6 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
 * 43) Weak support, with concerns similar to Mikkalai's. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 6 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
 * 44) --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. -- llywrch 6 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * 46) IByte 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC) Kill the tidal wave of vanity pages. I'm learning all I never wanted to know about people I've never heard of (and probably never would).
 * 47) * IByte's 250th contribution was at (or after) 23:48, 8 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
 * 49) Support This is good, I'd prefer if the age section were removed but I think that this will reduce the huge load of vanity articles. Rx StrangeLove 7 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:53 (UTC)
 * 51) Support Well worded, and I like the conservative proviso of age (though it is, as stated, arbitrary) -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
 * 52) Support I too could do without the age section.  In general, it is incument upon article creators to demonstrate notability, and this criteria recognizes that.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
 * 53) Support with the age provision, a rule for child vanities is long overdue. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
 * 54) Support, if the intended goal here is to keep the teen vanity pages off Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
 * 55) Support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 9, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
 * 56) Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
 * 57) * Gwk's 250th contribution was at (or after) 02:40, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Support. This doesn't prevent articles about young people, it just forces you to provide a (one, singular) external citation.  That's a pretty low bar, and should probably be applied to all biographical articles, regardless of the age of the subject. RoySmith 13:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Support. Aaron Brenneman 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) *Comment This user does not meet the suffrage criteria, account having been created on the 5 July 2005. Hiding 08:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Support -- nyenyec ☎ 00:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed vote toSupport Any valid article can easily be recreated. For an example consider the first three edits at Wayne Rooney. If the article had been deleted at edits 1 or 2 this would not have precluded 3 from appearing. Hiding 11:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC) changed vote back to oppose after discussion on talk. Hiding 23:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * You do realize that 3 still fits this criteria in this proposal for speedy deletion, right? -- Jonel | Speak 12:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) **Good grief, it appears you are right. I thought the assertion of being the youngest player ever to play for England would have met the criteria, but it doesn't.  If that's true, I shall be capricious and change vote again. Hiding 12:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - It should be easy enough to cite a source for a person if they really are remarkable. The person doing the delete should make a quick web or news search before taking the delete action. --Mysidia 12:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * Mysidia's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:25, 9 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Dsmdgold 14:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC) Could allow for better scrutiny of other pages on vfd.
 * 8) Weak Support Needs exception for dead people. I suggest a seperate vote or revote on the age limitation criteria later.Inigmatus 15:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) * Inigmatus's 250th contribution was at (or after) 17:21, 12 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. The wording sounds bit strange but I agree with the spirit of the proposal. Pavel Vozenilek 19:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, looks doable. Feydey 22:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, I don't see much fault in making this one of the criteria. IanManka 05:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) * IanManka's 250th contribution was at (or after) 05:33, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support but if it's not clear that someone is under 25 it needs to go to VfD. Vegaswikian 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. Noel (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Newbies never include sources, there are any number of notable young actors and musicians would who be deleted under this criterion. Kappa 4 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
 * 2) *Actually, Uncle G's statistical analysis of VFD practice show otherwise. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 4, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
 * 3) *Disputed that that is actually the case at all on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 4) *There's a notice below every edit box telling people to cite sources. Newbies should follow simple instructions. This encourages people to cite their sources - something which is sorely lacking throughout much of Wikipedia - and is therefore beneficial in my book. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
 * Encouraging the citing of sources is good; but speedy deleting articles for failing to exceed the standards of a large proportion of Wikipedia, with the sole other criterion that the articles are those of people under an arbitrary age, seems excessive. TSP 16:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened.  -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
 * 2) *There was a good discussion in Uncle G's user space. -Splash July 5, 2005 00:35 (UTC)
 * 3) Too much valid stuff could slip through the cracks. JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)  Oh, and I'd change my vote to neutral iff either proposals P1 or P2 pass.  JYolkowski // talk 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
 * 4) *Challenged on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 5) Wording is too rigid and confusing, in my opinion. I share Kappa's concern as well.  Prefer Proposal 1. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 5 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)
 * 6) *See the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 7) This is a tricky proposal. Even if statistical analysis shows the value of this proposal, I'd rather be on the safe side. JoJan 5 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
 * 8) Many articles don't refer to "sources". Besides, how reliable are "sources" anyways? And why age 25? PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:01 (UTC)
 * 9) *Answered on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - speedy-delete if they're clearly *not* notable (for example: "John Doe is a student at XYZ high school"), but if it just can't be inferred from the article whether a person is important or not, then take to VfD so that there can be a longer discussion (if necessary). -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
 * 11) *Questioned the possible confusion of this proposal with proposal 1 on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. This should fall under the scope of unremarkable people judgments. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) July 5, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * 13) *And if "unremarkable people" doesn't pass because it introduces subjective estimates of "notability"/"importance" as a speedy deletion criterion, like "vanity" didn't pass before it? Again, see the discussion of the conflation of this proposal with proposal 1 on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 14) Utterly baffling proposal. If an article lacks references, the solution is to ad references, not delete it. See also Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
 * 15) *The generalization "If an article lacks references, the solution is to ad references, not delete it." is, quite simply, untrue. A long discussion refactored to the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
 * 16) ** Seems to amount to a difference of opinion on semantics. I note that I object to unilateral deletions on this basis.  No objection to this proposal if deletion was to be carried out solely using the mechanism described in P1-A. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
 * 17) Cruft — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
 * 18) Clifton d'souza and the like ought to go through VfD.  Just like Cortez Peters - the article as it was when VfDed   did not have a source nor did it give any indication of age.  Peters, however, is an entirely appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. -- Jonel | Speak 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
 * 19) * Note that editors state in VFD that articles such as Clifton d'souza, rapidly heading towards garnering a unanimous consensus to delete as such articles do, ought not to go through VFD. I'll see your Cortez Peters and raise you Paris Hilton.  Even the very earliest version of Paris Hilton in the history cited sources by citing news coverage (specifically, the National Enquirer). Uncle G 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
 * 20) ** I'm again utterly baffled. How does the fact that some articles appear with references in the first version make it okay to speedy delete articles that don't? I feel as if I've fallen down a rabbit hole, it just doesn't make any sense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
 * 21) *** For the utterly baffled: Jonel is talking about false positives. I'm pointing out that the rate of false positives is very low, and showing that there is a far larger number of true negatives (and am using examples drawn from the "any number of notable young people" that Kappa was referring to, to make the additional point that whilst in theory a friend-of-Avril-Lavigne could write a speedily deletable article on Avril Lavigne the tie-stealer, in practice such articles about "notable young people" can and do turn out to be true negatives, because they will reference web sites, news coverage, books, magazine interviews, and so forth).  Uncle G 5 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)
 * 22) **** And I say the rate of false positives is still too high. Your data shows that more than 10% of the articles that met this criterion received no consensus to delete.  That is way more than enough for me to say that these should go to VfD.  I disagree with Pedant and yourself that articles such as the one about Clifton should be speedied and note that none of the other six "delete" voters at this point made any reference to it being speedied. -- Jonel | Speak 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
 * 23) *** I trawled the June 10 deletion log (the date chosen at random) for bio keeps and got three people whose ages were not listed in the initial article, whose initial articles didn't contain references and were presumably speedy candidates under this rule (and if they're not and I'm an administrator can you tell me how you'd trust an administrator to implement this rule). Those three articles, all listed on the same day chosen at random, are now good articles.  Speedying is supposed to target complete no-hopers.  Losing three good articles a day to one single speedy rule is not acceptable in my view. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. If an article lacks references references should be provided. An article which asserts notability but doesn't provide a source for it would seemingly fall under this criteria. -- Joolz 5 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
 * 25) *Discussed the apparent conflation of proposals 1 and 2 here on the discussion page. Uncle G 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
 * 26) Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:13 (UTC). I don't like these criteria.  I think that articles which would be deleted under this policy would almost always fall under proposal #1, which is more clear and comprehensive.  Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
 * 27) Rules that are rigid and arbitrary, like this "25" rule, are the antithesis of wiki. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
 * 28) *Are you seriously suggesting that the criteria for speedy deletion, which does not involve debate, should be vague and subjective?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
 * 29) The age restriction is ludicrous. --Sn0wflake 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
 * 30) *The age restriction prevents false positives. Please look at the study and see the increase in the number of false positives when the age restriction is removed. Uncle G 5 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
 * 31) **While I do respect you and your research, which I have read and found very accurate, it is of my belief that once this is made a CSD criterion, it will become obsolete. Vanity articles will always be vanity articles, there is no way to hide that, but age can always be changed with no consequence whatsoever. I can almost picture the same vanity articles we have today on the Wikipedia, but with a standard birth date of 1969 on each an every of them. Bang. There goes the criterion. So I remain on the opposition. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
 * 32) Ridiculously instruction-crept way of writing "college students annoy me" - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. 25 years is arbitrary and I agree with most of the other objectors. Lots of new articles don't have sources, and are no worse for it. David | Talk 5 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Many new articles don't have sources, many new wikipedians don't know that they're expected. Since most articles usually get listed for VFD/CSD within a few minutes of their creation, there's been little chance for other wikipedians to suggest that citations be added. Indeed, as a brief survey detailed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 shows, the majority of articles on under-25-year-olds we have here today started their lives as referenceless articles, and often continued, even to this day, as quite extensive articles which happen not to have references. Under this proposal, articles such as Tutankhamun, Joan_of_Arc, Johnny_and_Luther_Htoo, Elián_González could have been speedied would have been eligible. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF - do you really think an admin would speedy any of those? Come on. You're scaremongering. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
 * What I obviously meant was "would have been eligible", not that they would have been deleted. My point was that, far from being the most clean-cut and neutral of the proposals, this still requires the admins to make up their own minds about the subject's notability. Oviously this decision is easy in the case of Tutankhamun, but not so easy in the case of, say, Adam Walsh. My point was that a huge number of articles exicsting today would have met the criteria for Speedy Deletion, as per my (brief) survey. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk</FONT> 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
 * Tutankhamun is quite an easy call, since the first revision already mentions that he was pharo in the 14th century BC, so the article wouldn't qualify for this proposal. Most of your examples on the talk page are similar. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
 * 1) --Mononoke 6 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
 * 2) * Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. A proposal along these lines (i.e. objective and specific) is something I'm glad to see but expecting new articles to provide sources is not very realistic. Too many good articles could fall to this. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 07:37 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The worst kind of instruction creep; arbitrary cutoff points as official policy.  <FONT COLOR="#006699">Un</FONT>focused 6 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Too general; I've seen many good articles whose first versions would have fallen foul of this. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 6 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Definitely owe the article a quick check at google for verification before deleting. This proposal could lead to the speedy deletion of too many good stubs with potential. Sjakkalle (Check!)  6 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. -- Aphaea *  6 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Well-intentioned rule, perhaps, but I will oppose any rule that purports to write age discrimination into Wikipedia policy. Strike the ageism, and the "unsourced biography" bit stands on its own. --FOo 6 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
 * 11) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC) Very poorly worded proposal, age should not be a factor. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
 * 12) I would support, except for the bizarre 25-year old requirement. What happens when you turn 25? Kaldari 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
 * 13) *When you turn 26, deletion of an unsourced biographical article about you is required to go through the normal deletion process rather than through the speedy deletion process. Uncle G 10:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Arbitrary and bizarre. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose.  Loads of reasons why not to.   ral  315  July 7, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
 * 17) Very strong oppose. <font style="background: black" face="Courier" color=#FFFFFF> Grue   7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
 * 18) Prefer proposal 1. Most newbies (and many or most wiki-veterans) don't source their articles, and there's just too much possibility of harm. Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 20:29 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Too arbitrary. --Moritz 7 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
 * 20) * Moritz's 250th contribution was at (or after) 21:48, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, especially if "Unremarkable people" passes, as seems likely. People under 25 should not be subject to stricter notability guidelines than those over 25. --Angr/undefined 8 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
 * 22) *This is not a notability criterion. It nowhere mentions notability at all. That's Proposal 1.  This is Proposal 2. Uncle G 10:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose The age requirement is a bit odd. Lack of bibliography shouldn't be an issue either. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
 * 24) <font color="FF0000">M <font color="CC9900">e <font color="FF9933">r <font color="FFFF00">o <font color="CCFF33">v <font color="66FF33">i <font color="00CC99">n <font color="3399FF">g <font color="0000FF">i <font color="330066"&gt;a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
 * 25) oppose because the criteria are too strange---they do not seem to be directly related to the likelihood that the subject is encyclopedic. This is troubling, even if there is high correlation between passing this test and passing the vanity test. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
 * 26) Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 09:39 (UTC)
 * 27) --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 18:15 (UTC) too complicated
 * 28) 24 at 9 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
 * 29) * 24ip's 250th contribution was at (or after) 18:20, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. 25 years old is too arbitrary. Leaves too much possibility for notable people to slip through the cracks. Age shouldn't affect notability. TheCoffee 21:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) *This is not a notability criterion. It nowhere mentions notability at all. That's Proposal 1.  This is Proposal 2. Uncle G 10:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. My biggest reason for opposing is the 25 thing, but plenty of good stubs come in without sources cited and that doesn't mean they should be deleted.  Proposal 1 just seems better in general. --Canderson7 18:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose based upon the no age given and it cannot be inferred that subject is older than 25 condition. Hiding 21:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC) change vote Hiding 11:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC) re-instate vote Hiding 23:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. The emphasis should be on those who want to delete articles proving their case, not for articles to prove their worth. Grace Note 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose, Agree with Grace Note and other concerns already mentioned. K1Bond007 04:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) I don't really see why 25 was chosen as the age requirement. <b style="color:mediumblue;">Andre</b> ( talk ) 05:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) *It is not a "requirement" that people be over 25 to be in the encyclopaedia. It's a requirement that unsourced biographies go through the normal deletion process if the subjects are over 25. Uncle G 10:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. Silly. -- A Link to the Past 09:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose - Not clear. -- ZeWrestler 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Random criteria. There are many notable people under 25, especially newly notable people that we should cover as soon as possible. CalJW 16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Shanes 05:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. The "under 25" part is silly - there are many notable under 25 year olds. Dan100 (Talk) 08:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. Age has nothing to do with notability. As stated by others. The solution is to add sources or speedy according to the unremarkable people criterion or VFD. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose - too arbitrary and discriminatory. If a person under 25 is not worthy of an article given a certain set of claims to notability, a person over 25 is not either; the process should be the same.  TSP 11:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose - I understand and feel sympathy for the idea, but I'm unconfortable with the age limit. It seems to me that most of the articles that should be speedied are about high school students, mentioning which high school they go to and not much else. Would probably support something along the lines of "Biographical articles that do not explicitly cite a source; and that are about persons who are in primary or secondary education". How does that sound?/ Alarm 17:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose. Age is not a factor. David Remahl 03:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose Lectonar 10:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose. CSD should not be based on generalities.  There must be NO exceptions to its validity.  25 is an arbitrary cut-off and plenty of good articles don't cite sources(yet). Superm401 | Talk 04:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. The 25 year cutoff bother me a little but I am opposed primarily because of the part about not being able to infer that the person is at least 25. DS1953 05:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Strongly oppose. Is arbitrary age bias really the only politically correct way to address the campuscruft problem?  A person's evidence of notability should speak for itself, regardless of age. &mdash; <font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK )  06:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose Arbitrary age rules seem unfair and, well, arbitrary. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose, wikipedia should not discriminate on the basis of age. Specific consensus via vfd is the best way to determine notability. -  Jersyko   talk  02:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. Age does not define notability. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) * Blu Aardvark's 250th contribution was at (or after) 07:28, 13 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose- age should not matter; there are many "encyclopedic" people under 25 (think Daniel Radcliffe, etc.) In addition, most new articles do not have a source to cite. The article gets built upon after the beginning. For example, see the original version of Daniel Radcliffe here- under 25, no cites. Does that mean it should have been speedied? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose - What does age have to do with anything? --The_stuart 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose. I support Proposition 1. Mwalcoff 00:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Age limits? Come on. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 10:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal P1
Note that if Tony Sidaway's new proposal (at Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/P1) passes, it would apply to this proposal as well. I think it would answer many of the objections to this proposal. I urge those who have supported this proposal to consider supporting P1 as well, and those who have oppsoed it to consider a conditonal vote of support if and only if proposal P1 also passes. DES 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)