Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1

Overlap with proposal 2
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2.

Uncle G's Rationale
The criterion is still subjective, and, as Pburka points out, ambiguous. (We lack a list of what jobs are "individually important to society".) Moreover, as James Gallagher (which asserts that the subject is "inherently important and notable") demonstrates, the articles that people want to catch and make speedy deletable "assert importance and significance" too, and elude the criterion. (Of course, being an unsourced biography about a 17-year-old, James Gallagher would have been caught by proposal 2.) Uncle G 4 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Less is more
I'm not decided yet, but I'd prefer a (way simpler) version that simply said: '"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" (should be speedied). From what I can see, a number articles don't even make an attempt at establishing notability (as in good at chess vs. chess grand master). This version would catch considerably fewer vanity pages, but those that are caught would certainly be deleted in VfD—and I prefer to have simple rules. --Moritz 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what this proposal says, except that the proposal adds some explanation, and the reminder that articles that are dubious but that do not fall under this criterion may be taken to VFD. The explanation was added because, during the earlier discussion, it was seen that people found some kind of explanation helpful. Several wordings were suggested, this one had the most support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 8, 2005 13:17 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that the explanation only added to the confusion, that's why I prefer the "bare" version. But I guess I'm late to the discussion... --Moritz 8 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
 * You can read the discussion here: Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load. In general, people prefer if examples are cited; most of the existing CSDs also add explanations. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Outcome
Though close, I believe this has passed. Comments? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

74.07% on raw counts (120 to 42); and 73.46% if you didcard all the votes to which cryptic noted possible sufferage objections (108 to 39). I have made no attempt to adject for any possible sockpuppets or other exclusions, i don't know of any allegations of such activity. This looks like a pass to me. DES 16:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I note that there is a fair amount of weak and conditional support included in these figures. Though I supported the proposal, I agree that the wording is poor and the examples are inappropriate for the policy page -- a sentiment many "Support" voters share. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last. The current wording requires too much judgement on the part of the admin to be a good CSD and so you are always going to get a lot of opposition/weak suport. Tests based on notability are inevitable woolly and I'd personally prefer a test based on verfiability, however I do concede that a better worded proposal based on notability may get sufficient support in the community. Pcb21| Pete 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the examples can be changed or removed without making a substantive change, and that there is consensus for the substance of the policy. I would include the wording without the examples. How about "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." DES 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to start Deletion of vanity articles and incorporate it by reference in an effort to keep this contained. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, User:Theo's vote reads "Conditional. Prefer Proposal 2 but would support this if that failed.Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)", so this should count as a support rather than an oppose. Doesn't affect the outcome, though.
 * Also for the record, I count three 'weak supports', ten 'strong supports' (or similar wording, such as 'long overdue' and 'would prefer stronger wording), and eight comments that are concerned about the wording and subjectivity. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * So what's your assessment? Is this proposal the best we can do? Or can we make it better so that more people agree with it? Pcb21| Pete 07:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good solution, but would still be happy to hear suggestions for improvement. Let's take this discussion to Deletion_of_vanity_articles. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)