Wikipedia talk:Deletion of vanity articles

wording, opposition, comparison
The wording isn't very good. "Asserting" something means to me to say it plainly in the text. So articles would say "X is important because he..." I don't think articles actually should do this. You can argue that an article should make apparent the importance of their subject but it's nonsense to suggest they should assert it.

Also, there was a fair amount of opposition to this. Yes, it got roughly 74% support, but that's a long way from consensus -- not that anyone particularly cares about consensus in Wikipedia. More than 40 editors expressed opposition.

A comparison of porn models and senators is nonsense. I can name dozens of the former and only a handful of the latter (if we are talking about American senators; I don't think I could manage even one of the senators here in Australia). To me, the former are more notable.

This is the problem of allowing people to decide what is or what is not "important" or "significant". Clearly, I wouldn't delete American senators. But you might delete porn models because you do not know them, or entomologists, or viola players, even though they "assert their notability" in the prescribed way, under this criterion. Grace Note 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not many porn stars even wind up on VFD, and those that do, it is mainly a cut and paste job. Many of the NN people I see on VFD are students, friends and garage bands. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The wording and interpretation of this policy can of course be subject of debate. However, 74% is a clear consensus to the extent that consensus can be shown by a poll. The 70% line is the same as used in the earlier Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD, and is even higher than the 67% that is required for VFD and similar pages. Yes, 42 people opposed, but 120 people supported, and that is 22 votes more than would have been required. This is not a narrow margin. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to think in terms of fixed wording and then being happy that 70-75% support is sufficient. Much better to consider the possibility that a good wording could get greater support. Pcb21| Pete 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, true. I would be happy to hear and discuss suggestions for improving the proposal, its wording, and its examples. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the same note, we could also discuss proposal 3-C (about unremarkable bands) that got 69% support; most of the opposition was not to the idea of the proposal, but to the wording that required it to depend on the guideline page WP:MUSIC in order to work. Here, too, we could consider the possibility that a good wording would get greater support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know there are some users who use MUSIC as their guide for voting, some users do not use it. Same thing with the Alexa and Google tests: some swear by it and some dispise it. Maybe, what it should say that some users can use the guidelines set at WP:MUSIC in making their judgement in if the article should be speedied or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion about WP:MUSIC has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The voting on this was practically 3:1. A little bit more, and it would even have passed an RfA. Consensus is not unanimity; to come back and tell 3/4 users that they are not a consensus is a bit much. Anyway, as to the current discussion. I think the examples are helpful. But they have no place in the wording of the policy itself: it is inherently POV. The clarification provided in the first 3 bulletts is also useful and are no doubt strong enough that they can be cited in support of a VfU. The final bullet point has appeared miraculously: where and when did that come from? It's instruction creep and ought either to be policy or not.-Splash 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the fourth bullet should go.

Regarding consensus. I believe that this policy reached consensus, or I would not have added it to WP:CSD. Some of the objections were over the nature of the examples and the wording rather than to the policy itself. The wording and the employment of examples can and should be improved over the coming weeks and months, and is likely to get better is it becomes informed by examples and counterexamples. I also note that several of the oppose voters are people who steadfastly oppose deletion of any article for any reason, an extreme minority view that should not be permitted to hinder tweaks to the deletion rules.

I do not support the idea that 70% is a magic figure that represents consensus.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's nothing magical about 70%. But if it must go to a poll, there must necessarily be a predefined threshold (one of the reasons that polls are evil, imo) and a 3:1 ratio is pretty decisive. To play with the opposite argument: consensus doesn't require any particular figure; it would be easy enough to claim consensus at 50%+1vote, but we are not a democracy. We use consensus to avoid tyranny by the majority, but we can have tyranny by the minority too. -Splash 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fourth bullet removed, by the good reasonings by Splash and Uninvited above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

A comparison of porn models and senators is nonsense. - Grace Note. Correct. Firstly, there are probably more senators (in the USA alone there are thousands, then multiply by the very many other nations with senatorial institutions). Secondly, the comparison is odious both generally (the truism) and specifically, for its implies that a senatorial position is in itself important - which it is not - and that by definition a porn model could not be - which is false. Thirdly, the assumption that the definition of importance is so blindingly obvious that only common sense (to the author's standard) is the sole determining factor needed for the judgement says more about the author than it does about the definition.

It is good that the policy has moved to where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability...because this is more open. Notability cannot deride from only a title, except in exceptional circumstances. There are masses of professional/'white collar' titles held by whole armies of nonentities. I myself have held a variety of such pompous titles which either meant little then or nothing now. Let our perspective be a broad, deep and long-lasting. Extramural 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page vs misguided user page vs minor noteworthiness
In terms of the rest of the discussion, all of this discussion about porn stars, senators and entomologists is a bit irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, published scientists, porn stars with a catalog of films and politicians of all levels are all worthy of an article (using Jimbo's 500 people worldwide rule). Many college professors are internationally famous in their limited field, and would easily pass the 500 person worldwide rule, based on their journal publications.

Several others are borderline - journalists for minor regional newspapers for example. These often have to go to VFD, and the final decision tends to rest on the quality of the article, rather than the noteworthiness. That's what VFD is for.

However the reality is, on a day to day basis, the majority of the articles we are trying to speedy with this policy are actually along the lines of "Mary Smith goes to Bogsville High School. She plays netball and likes watching TV", and the even worse "Jet-Thrush-Carrot-Killer are the most exciting band ever in Pine Nut, Arkansas...".

A couple of times I have had some well-meaning but over-zealous person list these pages on VFD, meaning we have to go through the BS of the 5-day thing. Most times we can simply move it to a user page, add a polite note to the creator and just move on. Manning 01:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Copying the text to the user's page leave us with the article still. That gets to keep all its history too, which can reappear with 4 mouse clicks (for mortals). We're not allowed to make redirects from article space to user space so that won't work either and would still leave the history. Once the article is created it must be deleted by an admin if that is what is wanted. Thus, a userfy vote is really a userfy and delete vote, and the delete part needs/needed to go to VfD. Moreover, most such blatant vanity is from anon IPs, so we can't userfy it even if we want to. And, until yesterday, the "well-meaning but over-zealous person" would have been the one putting speedy tags on vanity pages: they simply weren't speediable under the rules as they were. As for VfD "rest[ing] on the quality of the article", well, that just isn't the case: most nominations and votes say things like "delete, not-notable", "delete, not encyclopedic" etc rather than "nicely written vanity article, keep" or "important topic, but badly written so delete". VfD is for establishing whether the topic should have article, not if the article is well-written or not (and there are frequent, "keep but cleanup" votes, too, which says the content is bad but the topic good). -Splash 01:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I don't do this in every case, only if I think the user was genuinely trying to create a user page and is just a bit clueless. And I don't move the page (along with its history), I cut and paste the relevant text and add a comment. I think that's in line with Do not bite the newbie. Other times I delete on sight - it's a judgement call. I am just arguing the case for being a bit gentler on newbies.


 * Either way, I want these articles killed and I don't want to see them on VFD. Manning 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Looking through your deletion log, though, I reckon a large number of the "vanity" or "no valid content" speedies would have had to have been undeleted if hauled to VfU because those two were not WP:CSD; just look at the amount of vanity that has/had to go through there. (Not an accusation, just an observation, and an unverifiable one as I can't view deleted pages.) I don't want them around any more than you do, but process is (or was) process. -Splash 04:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a candidate for Speedy?
Here is the text from a recent band entry. Please read it and say if you would delete it or keep it. My own vote is delete. My purpose is to set a benchmark of some sorts. I DID delete this by the way, but will resurrect it if needs be.


 * Stark (band)


 * 'Stark' are a rock band from northern Ireland which consist of four members: Daniel Leith-vocals, Jason Gibson-guitar, Ryan Jendoubi-bass, and Marty McCloskey-drums. The band began in the last few years and have since played in many successful gigs, including Queens Hall in Newtownards and Hamilton House in Bangor. A quick-selling CD was also released in 2004 which fully complemented the groups song-writing and musical capabilities that are highly impressive when one compares the teenagers to more 'well-known' or established pop and rock figures.


 * Recently the group has been seldom seen live, the last show being a private birthday party, and a second album does not seem too likely; however, each of the band members remain musically active, focusing on their solo careers.


 * Both Stark and No Offence But, another popular band from Northern Ireland, are under the record label Lead Badger Records which was created by the band member from Stark, Ryan Jendoubi. The bassist used his skills in design to create the symbol for the record label that can be seen on the bands' websites and albums.

Now in my opinion, this is a speedy delete. Am I going too far? Manning 04:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes, that would be too far: it would need VfD under prevailing procedure. It is (imo) unfortunate the new speedy-proposal for bands also failed, but it did. If it had passed, this would have been only barely speedy (the "many successful gigs" bit might qualify for WP:MUSIC point 2; they don't meet any others most importantly with one 'album' rather than the two demanded).


 * However, if it were on VfD I would check allmusic.com (find nothing) and Google (find no matching hits with things like: Stark "Daniel Leith"), cite WP:MUSIC at it (as a guideline) and then vote to throw it in the bin as non-notable bandcruft. I imagine it'd be pretty unanimous, which makes the failure of the CSD proposal all the more disappointing. If this came up on VfU, it being a highly procedural, non-content forum, I think it would have to be undeleted and return to VfD. At which point...(etc). Of course, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. -Splash 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I would put this on VFD as well. It makes several claims to notability (succesful gig in Queens Hall, release of CD, and reference to the record label). These claims sound kind of overrated and unverifiable to me, but that's for VFD to decide. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would not delete this entry myself because I have no idea where "Queens Hall" and "Hamilton House" fall in the spectrum between 10,000 seat auditoriums and smokey clubs with two beat up sofas each. But I suspect that, whether it fits CSD or not, it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. The thing to bear in mind is that probably 1 in 25 people has been in a gigging band at some point in their life, and that such bands are not inherently notable. Even the more successful local bands like the Casablanca Orchestra are marginally notable, at best, because they are ephemeral and, by their very nature, follow existing musical styles rather than creating new ones. Thus they have no lasting effect on music history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be forgetting a very important thing: The newly adopted criterion that allows deletion of vanity articles specifically states that the article should be about a "person". The wording used actually makes it impossible to delete any band article (or web page article, club article, school article, street article or book article) according to this paragraph. My personal opinion is that this might be unfortunate, but given the sensitive subject of speedy deletion and the rather narrow margin by which this passed, I think it is a bad idea to stretch it by analogy. (Rather, this limitation ought to be explicitly clarified.) Instead, I hope the discussion about a new "band clause" proposal can lead something with the possibility of reaching consensus.
 * (If, hypothetically, the current vanity clause would have allowed for non-person articles to be speedied, I would still say that claims of a "quick-selling CD" and "many successful gigs" do assert notability, so this specific article should have gone to VfD anyway.) / Alarm 15:13:23, 2005-07-23 (UTC)

Not much of a consensus
74% seems a tad low for such a radical proposal. I'll be watching events closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we always have talk page discussions, AN/I and RFC for people who abuse speedy deletion criteria. I have looked for and found very little of such abuse before the proposal, and do not expect the situation to change now. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the only real problem will be when a poor article on a valid topic is speedily deleted and when someone patrolling the deletion log attempts to put in a little stub instead, gets deleted as "recreated content". Pcb21| Pete 16:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility. The proposed (and accepted) rewording of CSD#G4 was intended to lessen that problem. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another example
David Persons was tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, and I removed the tag because I felt a clear assertion of notability was made. Was I wrong to remove the tag? Thanks &mdash; Pekinensis 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say you were absolutely right. Being "nationally recognized as one of the outstanding essayists" is clearly asserting notability. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you &mdash; Pekinensis 05:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

ericsson1_ &gt;|&lt; 16:02, October 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Was I wrong to remove the tag?  Dear Pekinensis, yes, you were. I and many I have discussed this with feel that you were wrong and deleting Dr. Persons was inappropriate censorship of a religious writer and leader, seemingly because he is a religious writer and leader. Doing a google search on "David Persons" or "Rev David Persons" turns up over 32 pages of hits on this writer. I am not that familar with his work, but it seems that many others are. One reason for deletion listed earlier was not many references on the web - this is clearly NOT the case - as I found page after page. Could it be that he is being deleted because he is a Christian that is unapologetic about the apologetics he writes about? This, as with many, Wikipedia deletions reflect a possible apparent bias of the Wikipedia editors against religious leaders and discussions much more than a concern about his viability as a person of importance. He is clearly a player in his particular field, and while that is not my field it seems that Wikipedia is censoring him, and many others, because they are not "serious" according to the narrow standards of Wikipeida editors. Wikipedia needs to stop censoring people that they do not agree with simply becuase they can. The current standard, as stated above, is not a standard at all, but rather, at least in my view, an excuse to censor and silence speech that Wikipedia disagrees with. That is both disappointing and disturbing. Dr. Persons is reflective of the growing "radical moderate" movement within the United Methodist Church and other mainline denominations, and his entry should be reinstated. I completely disagree with Radiant is his assertion that you "were absolutely right". Is Radiant aware of any of Dr. Persons words or work? Until he or she examines it, advocating removing anyone that is not "famous" or "important" according to the narrow standards of popular culture should be done carefully and with consideration of the whole picture. I know that the person who made the initial entry, one of Dr. Persons' many religion and philosophy students, is planning on resubmitting an article soon. I hope that Wikipedia will not be so quick to censor this author, and others, because they are not in the usual mainstream of popular culture. They are still important in their fields and their work influences many. His entry will be resubmitted and should be reinstated, and each reader should be allowed to decide for themselves if he, and others who face the same response from Wikipedia, are important or not. Then again, that is a recurring theme in the few things I have read that Dr. Persons has written - letting everyone be heard and each person deciding for themselves about which voices and ideas are true and important. Maybe THAT is why he was deleted, the fear that others might disagree with Wikipeida's assessment. Wikipedia needs standards; no one is arguing that. However, multiple pages of work on the internet, and elsewhere, should be enough to allow someone of his caliber to be listed and then for each reader to decide for themselves. This was not a case of someone simply wanting to see their name on the net (I doubt he even knew it was submitted) but rather of someone who had been positively influenced by someone's work, apparently one of many, adding his information to the debate and the body of knowledge that Wikipedia purports to represent. Please let it do so without undue censorship, or making submissions a popularity contest. Take care! &mdash; ericcson1


 * I believe you have misunderstood my action, which was a move against speedy deletion of the article. I did not remove the article, but the tag that marked the article as a candidate for speedy deletion.  &mdash; Pekinensis 23:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected then. However, I am also a bit confused. Where is the article then? Was it deleted or not? And if so, how can it be reposted? Thanks for your quick reply, by the way. Keep up the good work you are doing on this site! &mdash; ericcson1 01:20 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Persons vs. person
Does the new July 2005 policy apply to multiple people / a group of people. i am using Anstice as an example. i'm tempted to speedy it cuz i'm tired of writing up the same explanation under VfD (i.e. non-notable, etc.) -- Bubbachuck 07:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I suppose this is a matter of common sense. If John Foo and Jane Bar are deletable under this rule, then arguably so would John Foo and Jane Bar be deletable. But it doesn't apply to clubs, groups, bands etc. Anstice definitely belongs on VFD; I'm tempted to CSD it under #A1, but there may be historical merit to its subject that just wasn't stated in the article. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tags
The cleanup tag for potentially vanity articles is cleanup-importance. It should be noted that articles in the associated category are either candidates for deletion according to this policy, or one step from that situation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

clarification proposal
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particularly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

expansion to businesses
Has anyone thought about having a similar policy for articles about non-notable businesses? -- SCZenz 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:CORP -- W P  Talk  00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the speedy deletion option, which does not seem to exist on the page you referenced. -- SCZenz 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been considerabel discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Spam. I oppose any such extension of speedy deletion, precisely becauae it is often a good idea to re-write an article about a buisness to remove promotion and PoV, and it is not easy to tell at a glance if a buisness is notable or not. DES (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll take my comments there. -- SCZenz 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Does A7 apply for bands?
Wile E. Heresiarch has said that A7 applies also for non-notable bands at Articles for deletion/Lost in fusion and accused a user who disputed the speedy for "wasting other people's time". Does A7 really apply for bands? I thought A7 only applied for indidvidual people or am I missing something? Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not, Sjakkalle. A7 applies to individual persons and individual persons only. Articles on bands, companies, the local grocery store, and similar institutions that do not "assert the notability" of their subjects are the province of AfD, where they are usually deleted for not being "notable," sometimes per WP:MUSIC or similar criteria.— enceph alon  10:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Encephalon is correct; however, given that the CSD proposal for bands fell just short of consensus for technical reasons, it would likely be a good idea to expand #A7 to include bands (or possibly groups of people in general, to include entirely-too-secret societies, and the club-of-me-and-the-neighbor's-kids). It could be worded just like #A7 only point to WP:MUSIC rather than here. Thoughts? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I voted against the band vanity speedy proposal, in part because I felt that there is a possibility, albeit a small one, that a band might be notable even if it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. What if there is a band that George W. Bush was a member of in his 20s? Some might argue that this would make the band notable even if it failed to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, then again others might argue it doesn't, but that is a thing for AFD and not CSD. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true. How about a wording such as this...
 * An article about a band that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Assertions of importance include but are not limited to those listed at WP:MUSIC.
 * Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I would have supported such a proposal, worded along the lines of A7 which I supported. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Scrap this policy as a reason for speedy deletion - AFD only
This is so obvious that I am tempted to just put the facts on the table and see where they land.

Facts:
 * 1) The vast majority of people who vote do not research things before voting.
 * 2) An incorrect assertion by an earlier voter will influence 90% of later voters.
 * 3) A speedy delete case can be over in minutes.
 * 4) Whilst undeletions are theoretically possible, they are not really plausible.
 * 5) It is common (over 10%) that so-called vanity pages are actually about notable people.

Given that, the reality is that a significant proportion of vanity pages which are nominated for speedy delete will pass even if they are about a notable person.

One example was Absolute Boyfriend, claimed to be a speedy delete for vanity. In reality, it is a very popular published anime manga graphical comic, with at least 20 shops selling it and I counted 15 message forums and 50 fan sites devoted to it. Hardly vanity.

In that example, however, the first 4 votes (it was AFD) were for speedy delete. They claimed that the article was poorly written: it was. The article was describing the most recent episode (a short for it). Had Absolute Boyfriend already existed as an article, their addition would have been useful. They also made several assertions of notoriety within the article, linking to wikipedia articles that talk about it.

Now, given this kind of ridiculous decision, which is relatively common, and given the fact that it was probably seconds away from a speedy deletion when I saved it, we have to suggest that this policy, as a criteria for speedy deletion is wrong.

Keep it as a policy for deletion, but then encourage people to research these things.

Far too many so-called vanity pages are real. Zordrac 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of these alleged facts. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You dispute these assertions? Do you not use the Vfd board? Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And also, you have your facts wrong. Absolute Boyfriend, in its initial stage, would be speedied for lack of context (because you couldn't infer from the article what it was actually about), not for being vanity. And second, the AFD did in fact come to the correct conclusion of keeping it. And third, none of those people who claimed it was a speedy were admins or indeed established users, so your assertion that the article was in danger is wrong. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will put it to you that, had I not intervened, the article would have been speedied. Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. None of the versions of this article were ever A7 (vanity biography) candidates, for the simple reason that they weren't "about a real person" (although the first ones were so nonsensical that one might be excused for thinking so).  The original versions were, however, clear speedy candidates under the A1 (insufficient context) criterion, and rightly so.  You may note that it took a complete rewrite from scratch to turn the article into something that makes sense; nothing from the original version survives.  That rewrite could just as well have been done after deletion.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The original article could have been included. I was just too lazy to get to the stage where that text could be included (to include it, I'd have to go to the laborious process of writing about the 5 episodes, and then get to the 6th which relates to that).  So I dispute your claims Zordrac 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do follow AFD. But in particular, I dispute the following allegations:
 * The vast majority of people who vote do not research things before voting.
 * An incorrect assertion by an earlier voter will influence 90% of later voters.
 * Whilst undeletions are theoretically possible, they are not really plausible.
 * It is common (over 10%) that so-called vanity pages are actually about notable people.
 * You have cited no evidence of them whatsoever. I am inclined to believe #1 for some users, but based on my experience #2 is false. I am very active on WP:DRV so I can vouch for the incorrectness of #3. And #4 is citing a statistic of "over 10%" which seems to have been pulled out of thin air. Finally, I wish to point out that votes to "speedy delete" anything on AFD do not in fact allow for speedy deletion of anything. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, call them assertions of fact. And on AFD today there were many counts of where an article to be speedy deleted was speedy deleted. i.e. result: speedy delete.

Regardless, the policy is ridiculous and disrupts the normal flow of wikipedia. Zordrac 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm serious. Please point me to a page where this actually happens. AFD is huge, I'm not going to analyze all of this. Also please provide evidence of this policy "disrupting the normal flow of wikipedia". Allegations are not getting us anywhere. If there are problems with policy I would be happy to hear and correct them. But please indicate where they are, rather than in general terms. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, I did link to probably the most obvious example that you are ever going to get, and yet you guys don't seem to notice the problems with it. So if you can't follow links, well, there's not much more I can do about that. Zordrac 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mean Absolute Boyfriend, it has been pointed out several times that it wasn't deleted on grounds of vanity but on grounds of lacking content and context. In other words, your claims are misguided. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe in "speedying articles" because:
 * We have an excellant "notibility" template.
 * Deleting an article may cause the original user to rereate i or even think of it as vandalism. It's natural to assume the speedy tag is in bad faith because no one want to see their articles deleted.
 * It often violates WP:NPOV

The course of action I take is: User:Can't sleep, Yankees will beat Red Sox (before you block me) 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the notibiliy tag
 * 2) Ask the author to verify the facts posted
 * 3) If that failed, use WP:AFD.


 * Congratulations on finding this policy page on your first day as a Wikipedia editor. Before scrapping this, I suggest you spend a week on newpage patrol.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of "remotely"
I have deleted the word "remotely" from the sentence:
 * Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

The word is redundant. Either something is plausible or it isn't. The only effect of having the word there is to undermine the balanced judgement of plausibility, by effectively suggesting something implausible should be given validity. Tyrenius 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Family Genealogy and Pedigrees
What are the guidelines for outlining a Family Pedigree, if none of the initial individuals contained within it are particularly notable?

The contributions to this wiki by all members worldwide could be a very useful research resource.

articles about spaghetti westerns and easterns
i wish to bring into notice that various articles concerning cheap films made in Hollywood and rest of the world are making their presence on wikipedia articles. i feel it is a wastage of resources,as most of the time they just duplicate from IMDB. i feel that at wikipedia, we can confine ourselves to define only those films that are notably known for their aesthetics and art values.

also, if there is common consensus, can we have a different criticism section for religious texts and practices, instead of defining their criticism on the main page itself.nids 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In Favor of Vanity Articles
Is there a wiki essay in favor of allowing Vanity Articles? I think they are requirement if we want wikipedia to break through further into the main stream. Social networking drives user generated websites. Mathiastck 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Established_Wikipedian established wikipedian really needs to be defined. Mathiastck 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or better yet it should be here Established_Wikipedian

Avoiding use of the word "vanity"
Just added important note - we've had legal sword-rattling about this from people when a deleted article about them was called "vanity", and they're looking for someone to sue to remove this slight from their name. (And I get to calm a lot of them down. Wheee!) In normal discourse, calling an article "vanity" would be a defamatory assertion unless you can clearly show they were responsible for it. I ask people to discourage such usage where possible. - David Gerard 10:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're calling it "autobiography" now. Less inflammatory.--Atlantima 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Since this particular page is inactive and redundant, it's probably a good idea to deprecate it by redirecting it to e.g. WP:CSD instead of adding a warning to it.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objections, I've now redirected the page, since it was inactive, redundant and using the term "vanity" which we really don't approve of.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lori Wilde
This article seems to have originated from the authoress herself and anonymous IP's in her home town in Texas. Published pulp fiction yes (loads) but does she meet notability? A poster here is claiming to be her, is stating we have her real name wrong but their isn't any real bio around that one expects from a notable authoress – just Advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)