Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal III (Vanity articles)

Proposal III (Vanity articles)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Candidates for speedy deletion:


 * Extremely blatant vanity articles. (e.g., bands that have never released an album, contain no members that are famous for reasons other than being in the band, and have no press coverage&mdash;also, people where the article makes no claim of notability and the person gets virtually no Google hits, not including any of Wikimedia's websites or mirrors.)
 * If an article is an autobiography, the administrator may, at his/her discretion, move it to the author's userpage.

Agree

 * 1) ike9898 02:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ground 00:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Ld | talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Xtra 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) SimonP 00:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Vamp:Willow 01:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Kevin 02:16, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Carnildo 02:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) gadfium 05:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) DJ Clayworth 05:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Ben Brockert 05:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Korath (Talk) 05:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Jeff Knaggs 08:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Skysmith 09:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) RadicalSubversiv E 09:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Dori | Talk 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Tuf-Kat 14:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) BrokenSegue 15:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Michael Ward 17:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Kilobytes may be cheap, but time isn't.Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) wheresmysocks 17:25, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) RickK 21:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Anthony Liekens 00:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Vignaux 02:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * 34) &#8472;yrop (talk) 03:16, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) jni 09:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Xezbeth  11:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Bucephalus 11:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Alphax (talk) 12:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Tompagenet 13:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Vanity articles are the biggest waste of time on vfd. Gamaliel 13:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) G Rutter 16:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Proteus (Talk) 17:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) David Iberri | Talk 19:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Agree that the obvious ones should go but the questionable ones should still be moved to VfD. - Lucky 6.9 19:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) ping 08:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Dbiv 15:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Agree. Deb 18:38, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Pavel Vozenilek 20:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Wyss 04:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) →Iñgōlemo←   (talk)  05:55, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 53) SWAdair | Talk 07:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:51, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) kelvSYC 06:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) -- uriber 22:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Henrygb 22:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Mikkalai 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Stormie 07:14, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Jiang 08:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) AlexTiefling 17:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) ✏ Sverdrup 18:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Secretcurse 04:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) foobaz·✐ 19:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) While objections are certainly food for thought, I believe the vast majority of articles deleted under this proposal would have no chance of surviving VFD. - RedWordSmith 21:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Grunt 🇪🇺 01:15, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 67) Raven42 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Trevor Caira 07:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) FOo 16:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Ashibaka tlk 20:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) R. fiend 21:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) CryptoDerk 22:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 74) I really don't agree with vanity. Vanity is too much for Wikipedia. Scott Gall 22:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) --LeeHunter 23:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Eric119 05:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) Calton 07:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) Goldom 20:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Aphaea 02:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) RedWolf 20:42, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) Smoddy | Talk 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Guidelines for notability should be established before anyone can decide on their own.  -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 3) max rspct 00.16 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) We don't have non-subjective notability guidelines - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 6) Gazpacho 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC), too vague
 * 7) While the example given is specific, the actual text of the propose is vague. Besides the types of bands defined (which I disagree with anyway, a band can tour extensively without putting out an album), what else is considered a blatant vanity article? --Sketchee 01:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Just using a subjective word like "blatant" is unacceptable without first defining what we consider this word to mean in the context of wikipedia. Rje 01:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Meelar (talk) 02:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Sc147 03:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Ливай | ☺ 03:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) These are still better decided by VfD.Dr Zen 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) I feel XI is better. --Slowking Man 07:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) The Google test is deeply flawed. iMeowbot~Mw 07:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) This is something I've been waiting for for a while, but we need proper guidelines on what exactly constitutes vanity. The guidelines given in the proposal aren't good enough. David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Rafał Pocztarski 12:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Notability is subjective, and Google isn't always reliable.  These things are best worked in VfD debates, not automatic speedies. P Ingerson 14:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) I think many so-called "obvious vanity" pages can already be deleted as a form of vandalism. This expansion creates too much risk of something that is credibly notable being deleted simply because one administrator doesn't realize that it has notability.  Kelly Martin 17:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Overly subjective criteria. --Goobergunch|? 18:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) This proposal could potentially lead to speedy deletion of poorly written, autobiographical or NPOV-violating articles about people/groups that deserve an article,. A proper VfD debate could 1) better establish notability by causing more extensive research 2) cause people who see the VfD entry and do research to rewrite the article. Phils 18:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) These inherently subjective cases deserve VfD not CSD. Dan100 19:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Peacenik 20:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) I like proposal XI better. Thue | talk 22:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) hfool/Wazzup? 23:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Too open to well-meaning but mistaken deletes.
 * 28) BSveen 00:31, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Jeff Anonymous 00:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC). As said by Humblefool, this is too open to mistaken deletes.  What is the harm in erring on the side of caution in these circumstances?  Kilobytes are cheap.
 * 30) Frazzydee|✍ 03:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) JesseW 06:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) R yan!  |  Talk  10:38, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Gentgeen 11:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Cyrius|✎
 * 35) Very subjective, encourages abuse of speedy deletion process. -- Naive cynic 12:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Notability is subjective, and Google isn't always reliable. These things are best worked in VfD debates, not automatic speedies Mononoke 16:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) PedanticallySpeaking 19:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Francs2000 | Talk 20:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree based on people who make no claims of notability, but disagree on the bands example: that isn't always immediately obvious and needs sorting through vfd. -- Francs2000 | Talk  20:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) This cannot be handled objectively, it requires some discussion. Preliminary deletion would be great for this.
 * 41)  Too vague.
 * 42) Shane King 01:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) I like the idea in principle, but it's just too ambiguous in practice.
 * 43) I agree that articles that fit the above criteria should probably be deleted. But the fact-checking necessary to establish that is much too involved for CSD. Hence, I disagree. arj 16:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Could still be a valid article. Let it VFD. ✏ Oven Fresh  ☺  18:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Hapsiainen 21:17, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Rossami (talk) 23:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (VfD these)
 * 47) Deathphoenix 23:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) This is better decided by a VfD.
 * 48) Notability is not necessarily immediately obvious, as Kelly Martin  suggested. JuntungWu 03:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) In particular, see the Mozilla seaMonkey example on the talk page for this proposal. Brianjd 08:04, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 51) --JK the unwise 11:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) (For example, what if someone is famous in a particluar imporatant feild but not well known)
 * 52) Warofdreams 12:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) VfD.
 * 53) See, I agree with the fact that vanity articles should be deleted, but this proposal doesn't make it clear enough what is intented. I think that these are a matter for VfD, anyway. [maestro] 12:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Not really clear sometimes because there are cases of borderline vanity, where the person might be somewhat notable--Plato 22:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) This is a problem, but the statement is too vague. VfD. Cmprince 23:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) SocratesJedi 07:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC).
 * 57) Need guidelines for notability. --Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 58) Votes for Deletion is better suited for this. I may support Proposal XI, though. Josh 10:46, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Yep; use VfD Lectonar 14:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) I would support this proposal were it to be more precisely defined, but it is too vague and subjective at the moment. I have seen several articles that were listed as 'vanity' by a deletionist admin, but which ultimately survived the VfD process. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) While I agree that vanity articles should be deleted, I feel this wording has too much potential to be abused. -Thryduulf 10:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Belgian man 12:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Norg 15:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Superm401 17:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 65) Guanaco 04:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Definitely not.
 * 66) No way. People are important, even vain ones ;) 23:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) Difficult to judge vanity. Requires VfD. -- Paddu 08:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Definition is not watertight. --JuntungWu 10:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) bernlin2000 ∞ 15:39, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : I agree with Juntung, too shaky to enforce properly. Needs to be pruned more.
 * 70) D AVODD  21:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Some pages originally listed as vanity pages have turned into very good articles on companies and notable people. D AVODD   21:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) These cases are too subjective to be reliably speedied. -- Visviva 23:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) In this case, this type of deletion request should go through the regular process. Andrew pmk 23:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Szyslak 02:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) These are the types of cases VfD was made for. I think there should always be an opportunity for people who think the subject of the article is notable to comment in VfD. Google testing isn't always reliable for this purpose, especially if the band is locally notable.
 * 74) There needs to be a little bit of research done to determine if an article is really a vanity piece. Suitable for VfD discussion, probably, but not a speedy. 23skidoo 06:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Most articles that fall into this category probably deserve to be speedied, but not all of them. Erring on the side of caution is best here I think. Indrian 07:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Markaci 09:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 77) Visviva 10:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) I think VfD works fine for this kind of article. And not all important people have an obvious online presence.  As a speedy criterion, this would essentially give one person power to class a vast range of worthwhile articles as vanity.
 * 78) Trilobite (Talk) 13:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Criteria seem to vague. Martg76 16:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) Strong disagreement. Dislike the focus on bands; other eyes are needed to really establish lack of noteworthiness there.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) Disagree. How many times has an article wound up on VFD, only to be found extremely notable in some moderately obscure field? Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  00:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) Disagree. In the past couple of months, I have seen notable professors, industrialists and musicians described as "vanity" by people who had not heard of them. While this is a result of poorly written articles, this can be improved in the process. This should be left for the decision of the community. 165.228.129.11 00:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) The above vote was from me. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 83) Arwel 04:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Disagree -- it all depends on the knowledge of the person making the assessment of notability whether someone is sufficiently notable.
 * 84) JoaoRicardo 04:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) Salazar 06:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 86) Oldak Quill 19:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 87) Starblind 20:47, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) Strongly disagree. Look on VfD any day of the week and you'll see at least one example of something accused of being vanity that isn't.
 * 88) kaal 01:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 89) bbx 02:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 90) Philip 06:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) One person's opinion isn't enough. There is currently an article about one of the most famous personalities in England, which has been edited more than a 100 times by more than 20 different users, listed under votes for deletion as "Obvious vanity"
 * 91)   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 17:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree with Philip - I wouldn't trust one person to know what is vanity and what is not. Pages often get listed on WP:VfD as vanity, only to get voted down when it is clear that the person does indeed deserve an article.
 * 92) Too loose a definition as it stands. Agree this is a major problem but don't want legitimate articles lost because of editor ignorance. Denni ☯ 02:58, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
 * 93) Notability is subjective. Google hits alone do not establish notability.  Agree with Philip. [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 06:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 94) BesigedB (talk) 16:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Criterion are too subjective. Would support being able to speedy copy/pasted CVs.
 * 95) Pedant 02:37, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) I've seen too many people mistake an article about an obscure person for an article about a 'nobody'. Would be happier to have 'vanity' articles reviewed by more than one or 2 editors.
 * 96) Jamirus99 03:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Disagree. The wording denigrates bands that are not well known and this power should not be delegated to any one person anyway (in terms of allowing them to have it speedily deleted.)
 * 97) Such matters are probably better left to VfD. Edeans 07:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 98) Katefan0 20:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) I'd dearly love to see a way to put this concept into practice, but I think this isn't quite it.
 * 99) Enochlau 23:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 100) --Idont Havaname 02:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 101) UTSRelativity 02:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 102) John 11:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 103) Almost agree with this one. Rich Farmbrough 23:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 104) agree with netoholic. Guidelines for notoriety necessary. Avriette 0:08 16 Jan (UTC)