Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:10, 8 July 2005

This is part of Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

1 (unremarkable people)

"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.

• About twenty nominations per day fall into this category. For an example of a lot of them, see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Bob Burns.
• For instance, "John Doe is good at chess" does not assert significance. "John Doe has won the UK National Chess Trophy in 1994" does. If people argue that winning that trophy is not significant enough, they should take the matter to VFD, as the assertion prohibits speedy deletion.
• For a definition of importance and significance, please see the relevant entries in Wiktionary. Administrators are expected to follow common sense. For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators.
• Some people argue that verifiability might be a better criterion. However, an article such as "John Doe is a student at Albuquerque high school" is verifiable to anyone who holds the school's yearbook. Yet the article would be highly likely to be deleted if nominated for VFD.
• This proposal partially overlaps proposal 2. 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

Support

1. This will most likely take in a lot of the most blatant vanity or joke pages. I would prefer stronger wording to ensure that this is the case, but even as it is I support it. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
2. Would also support a stronger proposal, but since we should be cautious about deletion this sounds like a good compromise. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
3. I don't like the wording on this -- i wish it were edited to not imply that specified professions were inherently notable. That said, this is a good idea. DES 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
4. Weak support - criteria are a little ambigious - Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:10 (UTC)
5. This is the best way to reduce the vfd workload. There's little chance of it getting abused, and recourses are available even if it is. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
6. Admins are admins for a reason. Let them do their jobs. humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
7. --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
8. Support iff G4 passes. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
9. Just in case Uncle G's proposal falls. I think, however, that this is a very poorly worded proposal containing as it does wildly arbitrary (and highly POV) examples that should be removed in the event this proposal is adopted. Nevertheless, the actual policy part of this is fine. -Splash 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
10. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
11. Absolutely, and high time such a policy was instated. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 01:53 (UTC)
12. Support, with the reservations expressed by DES and Splash. -- BDAbramson July 5, 2005 01:55 (UTC)
13. Death to vanity articles! Alphax  5 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
14. Wording may be improved. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
15. gadfium 5 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
16. Anything contested will go to VfD anyway. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
17. I prefer Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2, but support both - I know far too many folks who are older than 25, have a page on geocities, and think they're good at chess. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
18. Generally too subjective under current wording; but I support the concept and think that it will do more good than harm. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
19. Kind of what happens anyway. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
20. This would be very handy so people don't have to waste time voting for every anon vanity page created. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:45 (UTC)
21. Support absolutely, to clear up VFD. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:43(UTC)
22. This would reduce considerably the workload on VFd. Excellent proposal. JoJan 5 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
23. Support to reduce VfD --G Rutter 5 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)
24. supportsounds good PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:03 (UTC)
25. Support. This will get rid of a load of VFD debates where the result is predetermined. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)
26. Support --Jpkoester1 July 5, 2005 11:33 (UTC)
27. Support -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
28. Support. Make the process easier. As always, those who do the deletions are usually intelligent enough to recognize a legitimate article from those that are not. — Ram-Man July 5, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
29. Support. It shouldn't take a week to get rid of what everyone is going to vote delete on anyway. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
30. Weak support — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
31. Support. I too think the wording could be a little clearer though. Couldn't the criteria just be "blatant vanity".... =P -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
32. Support, with the caveat that we come down hard on people who stretch this one. For example, "John Doe is a state representative from Idaho" clearly asserts notability and should be put on vfd (if nominated at all). This should not be used where there is even a hint of controversy. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:12 (UTC)

    Under the current wording of the proposal, people could and would delete articles like that example. Because the proposal does not address your concerns, I urge you to vote against it until it can be fixed. Factitious July 6, 2005 01:14 (UTC)

    I must disagree--"people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker". This says, to me at least, that people can be notable simply because they are in a certain profession. Nobody is notable for being a student; some people are notable merely for being actors; all people who are British Prime Ministers are notable. In cases where there is controversy (state senators, e.g.), I would fully expect responsible admins not to speedy--and if they did so, they should expect actions to be taken against them. This proposal addresses my concerns, if it's coupled with tough enforcement of violations. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

33. Support. Warofdreams 5 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
34. Support. --Sn0wflake 5 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
35. Support. --KFP 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
36. Support. Admins who abuse this criterion can and should be Wikicensured, but this is a very helpful, commonsense proposal that will reduce VfD load considerably. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 5 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
37. Support. Mr Bound July 5, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
38. Support. I think 'assertion of notability' is about as hard and fast a measure as can be adopted to deal with vanity articles. I would want to make a slight amendment to discount purely subjective assertions of notability (eg "He is the greatest person in the world!"). David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 5 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
39. Support. Ahhh, no more "Robert is a really great friend of mine"-type articles... — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
40. Support. Admins still need to clear speedy deletion, so I'm not so worried about people thinking astronauts are non-notable.--Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

    Judging notability of occupations is a very subjective matter, even for admins. Factitious July 6, 2005 01:14 (UTC)

    • Speedy deletion doesn't need to be cleared. It's just a guy pressing a button and deleting an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
41. Support. -- Grev -- Talk July 6, 2005 00:48 (UTC)
42. Support. Golbez July 6, 2005 02:15 (UTC)
43. Support. Jayjg 6 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
44. support--Porturology 6 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
45. STRONG support. Will definetly cut down VFD nominations. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:18 (UTC)
46. support. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:48 (UTC)
47. Support. --Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 04:57 (UTC)
48. Support. sɪzlæk July 6, 2005 07:54 (UTC)
49. Support Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)
50. Support iff proposal 2 fails. Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
51. Support — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
52. Support. Makes sense. Carbonite | Talk 6 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
53. Support. The first step in establishing notability should be the job of the article's creator. So what if we get an article about the latest Hollywood star that says "Erica Bigbreasts is an actress who has appeared in several films"? If they are notable then the article will be either expanded by somone checking recent changes or the person checking articles tagged for deletion. Just becuase it can be speedied doesn't mean it must be speedied. If the article is "Erica Bigbreasts is an actress who has appeared in several films. In July 2005 she claimed to have had an affair with Laura Bush", then that asserts notability, and if there is any doubt if that is notable enough it should be discussed at VfD. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
54. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
55. Support. I argee with thyduulf's comment, if a person really is notable, it's highly unlikely that something indicating that wouldn't be included. Someone in the oppose votes suggested that an astronaut could be deleted, but it's extroadinarily unlikely that someone would exclude that basic fact. People need to provide examples of things that would actually be deleted under this policy. Nathan J. Yoder 6 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
56. Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
57. — Dan | Talk 6 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
58. Kaldari 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
59. Support. -- llywrch 6 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
60. As long as obscure but still somewhat notable figures like Larry Semon aren't covered by this, I support this one. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 6 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
61. IByte 6 July 2005 20:38 (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).
62. Carnildo 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
63. ABCD 6 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
64. Support. Anomaly1 7 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
65. Support. Nohat 7 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
66. Support -- this is exactly the sort of judgement call admins are expected to make. However, I'd strongly suggest tag-and-bag for these. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
    • Does this mean tag first and then delete after a time? It seems to me that this is no different from VfD. We tag and then delete after five days. In the absence of Keep votes no extra work is required, but in the meantime there is a chance to scrutinize the tagged articles. I could live with a streamlined version of this (an "about to be deleted" category and a holding period of 1-5 days) to give us a chance to see what is being deleted under this criterion. My only objection is to missing the unilateral deletion of articles we've not had a chance to look at because we didn't know they existed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
      • To support a "tag and bag" mechanism, I have made a new proposal. See proposal P1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
67. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
68. Support. Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
69. Support. VfD is suffering with all that blatant vanity. jni 7 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)
70. Support This is a good, but not perfect criteria which I prefer to voting "delete nn -~~~~" 10 times a day -Harmil 7 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
71. Support <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
72. Support Long overdue. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
73. Yep.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
74. Support - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
75. Support. Makes perfect sense. The very few "legit" articles that are deleted this way can be recreated in better form within seconds. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
76. Support. Admin are smart enough to distinguish obvious vanity pages. If not obvious, then the Admin can move to Vfd at his/her discretion. Plus anything wrongly deleted could be easily resurrected. Dystopos 7 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Criteria are too ambiguous. I support Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 instead. Pburka 4 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
2. For the reasons given on the talk page. Uncle G 4 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Slightly ambiguous, I think that a lot of the stuff that deserves to be speedy deleted already falls under "Very short, no context". Note that I would support iff proposal A1 passes. JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 20:46 (UTC) (edited JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)) Oh, and I'd change my vote to neutral iff either proposal P1 or P2 pass. JYolkowski // talk 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
4. prefer Proposal 2. JesseW 5 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
5. Per Uncle G Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
6. Conditional. Prefer Proposal 2 but would support this if that failed.Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
7. I can't support this. We'd end up with world class viola players and the like being speedied instead of wrongly VfD'd. I don't have time to go trawling through the deletion log to rectify this. See also Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)
   • Well, great. I don't have time to go trawling through RCs to make sure every nonsense vanity article of the "I'm cool becuz I go to Home Street High School and play football" genre gets VfD'd. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
     • That's already speediable as a very short article with no context. JYolkowski // talk 6 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
     • I'd also like to ask: why do vanity articles urgently need to be deleted in the first place? We're not exactly overrun with vanity articles, they're not taking up namespace that would be occupied by anything else (they get deleted or moved if they are) and nobody links to them. If they begin to fill up the disk we just run a "least accessed" scan and delete the articles that are never accessed. They absolutely are not a problem for Misplaced Pages except when people delete good articles in the belief that they're deleting vanity, or when people fill VfD up with vanity articles (which is fine) and complain that VfD is full of vanity articles (which is silly, what do you expect?) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
   • In asnwer to Tony Sidaway: let's be objective here. Even if your statement becomes a reality - unlikely, but I am giving you the benefit of doubt - we can sacrifice a stub article in order to be able to eliminate thousands of worthless articles without having to to start a VfD proccess. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
   • My full response to this is below in the comments section. To put it briefly, it *will* happen and a substantial number of good articles will be lost because of this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
8. This criterion is to subjective. We'd just end up with the arguments over notability happening on VfU (where they most emphatically don't belong) instead of VfD, which is not an improvement. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
9. Too many of these "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" nominations reach VFD ... and have their notability established after days. Not speedy material, not at all - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
10. Arguments by David Gerard -Mononoke 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
11. Oppose, because there was no attempt made to make this objective. If someone thinks that, say, astronauts aren't notable, he could speedy articles about astronauts under this proposed rule. Anyone who participates in VfD will be aware that subjective disagreements over notability are common. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:08 (UTC)
12. Oppose. A strange criterion -- virtually nobody, and certainly not many professors or actors, are notable simply due to their profession -- and in any case, a vague one. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 05:24 (UTC)
13. Oppose because the criterion is (way) too subjective and prone to errors in my opinion. I see too many VfD nominations that are marked as not notable which easily survive VfD (see e.g. this example which was nominated yesterday). Making these cases, or at least the articles that are about people, speedy deletion material will surely reduce VfD-load, but peer review is actually very useful for determining notability. As David Gerard notes, people sometimes equate I have never heard about him/her with not notable. I strongly prefer VfD for dealing with notability issues. Sietse 6 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
14. Oppose the criteria is way too subjective and way too many good articles would be caught up in this which would exponentially increase the load on the votes for undeletion. Jtkiefer July 6, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
15. Oppose per David Gerard. Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
16. Oppose; the criterion is too vague. Articles on people are already deleted far too often 9especially compared with those on other subjects). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
17. Oppose. The proposal is a little too vague. I support the second criteria instead. This particular proposal would catch the "John Doe is a really cool guy" articles, but will miss the "John Doe won the 2003 Dr. Mary Smith High School Chess Championship and won second prize in a beauty contest" articles. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Too ambiguous and sounds subjective. --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
19. Per Tony Sidaway. —Charles P. (Mirv) 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
20. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:25 (UTC) Absolutely not. People are notable, esp. when they are verifiable. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
21. Oppose Too ambiguous. Fieari July 6, 2005 20:42 (UTC)
22. Oppose For many of the reasons stated above, David Gerard's in particular. Also I'm afraid that in the borderline cases a group of admins will look at a new article one by one until one with a low threshold deletes it, thus going against the unspoken (and admittedly unofficial) consensus of the admins that viewed it previously and decided that it wasn’t speedy material. I guess that subjective criteria like this should be run through more of a consensual process (VfD). I think that #2 does a better job of objective standards. Rx StrangeLove 7 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
23. Oppose per David Gerard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:49 (UTC)
24. Pcb21| Pete 7 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
25. Oppose notability is a very slippery concept. This ought to go to VFD so that it can be google/nexis checked. —thames 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Comments

• "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." What does that mean? We're talking about a case of speedy deletion. Nobody gets a chance to dispute anything. If the administrator doesn't happen to think that something is controversial (for instance, if he doesn't think that city mayors are notable and isn't aware that this is a controversial view) then we lose an article we never knew we had, before we get a chance to improve it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

• In assessing the likelihood of good articles being speedied, I have to look at what has been nominated to VfD. If we look at first day in July, we've seen deletion listings for Stephen Hague, Barbara Metcalf, Li Jing, Frank Field (meteorologist), Brian Blackwell, William Connolley, and Stefan Rahmstorf. They all seem to have been thought non-notable by someone, and all seem to be heading for keep. William Connolley in particular seems to have attracted a VfD nomination in the past but is headed for its second keep result. Seven articles in one day is too high a price to pay for a tidier VfD. Discussion of deletion is the purpose of VfD, and it's doing its job very well. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
  • I believe that the problem with this explanation lies in the fact that it disregards a simple factor: it does not matter how many articles get wrongfully nominated. What matters is wether the admin actually deteles the article. Admins, theorically, are seasoned Misplaced Pages contributors which have seen dozens of VfDs unfold and have a good idea of when an article is clearly bogus and when there might be something more to the article. Now, I agree that lately we have seem some events unfolding on RfA that are at the very least of a questionable nature, and of course, a few admins will make bad calls, but assuming good faith, the system remains integer. I truly do not believe that this rule will be abused. Most of the active admins today have a good grasp of what they are doing, and while there will be accidents, it's not likely that thet will happen on this proportion. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

See next section below. There are too many "mistakes".

And of course we already have some administrators doing stuff like this:

01:44, 27 June 2005 Jinian deleted "Abbas Bin Abdu'l-Muttalib" (content was: '{{delete}}According to Sunnis sources he did not give alligance to Abu Bakr, until Ali suposedly did so.')

01:44, 27 June 2005 Jinian deleted "Abu Dharr Ghifari" (content was: '{{delete}}Muhammad sayd about him:'Their is no man more truthfull betwen heaven and earth than him)

01:43, 27 June 2005 Jinian deleted "Ammar ibn Yasir" (content was: '{{delete}}According to Sunnis sources he did not give alligance to Abu Bakr, until Ali suposedly did so.')

These three articles were about three Sahaba, or companions of the Prophet Muhammed. I have no idea why Jinian deleted them instead of just cleaning them up or marking them for someone else's attention. The point is that even now we cannot spare the resources to undo the damage performed, whether deliberately or inadvertently, by administrators. Give administrators the power to decide alone whether an article about a person should be deleted, and the administrative load will increase because many of us will be reduced to trailing around after one another undoing the mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Actually it's even worse than I thought. Stub articles about theories in quantum physics and Premier League football players should not be deleted, even if they don't go into detail on theory or describe the player as the worst in the team. Content can be cleaned up by editing, there is no need to delete.

Why are some administrators doing this stuff? I have no idea, but I'd guess either ignorance or laziness. Just because we're administrators doesn't mean we have godlike powers. That's why VfD is the place for deletions of all but the most incoherent articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

In answer to Tony Sidaway: if certain administrators are not acting in accordance to the rules, leaving a note on their Talk page is likely to solve the problem. If that does not suffice... well, we do have a system for demoting admins, don't we? The way you express your opinion makes me wonder wether your views clash against the proposed CSD rules in question or wether in truth they clash with unskilled admins. If it is the former, then this is probably not the best way avaliable to solve the problem. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Why do we need to do that? We have an excellent forum for discussion of deletions. It works very well. But give those administrators a rule like this proposed rule and we'll see more of these questionable deletions. And I can't really do anything about Jinian even now. Add a rule like this and we'll see Misplaced Pages degrade. We will lose good articles because of ignorant administrators.

I think you're going a bit wide when your interpret my statement as an attack on unskilled admins. Jinian is highly skilled and very experienced. But that doesn't stop him making massive mistakes even within the current framework. I don't think he's untypical as a Misplaced Pages administrator, because we're not chosen for our research skills.

VfD is currently one of the finest and fastest research tools on the planet. Why are we proposing to scale back its research load and hand the job to amateurs? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

This is a rather complicated discussion. I am not implying that I disagree with you entirely. I merely had to pick a (metaphorical) side, and opted for the one which I saw as best to my interests. It is true that these polls were rushed, and needlessly so. They are likely a reaction to two distinct phenomena which are directly related: the growth of the Misplaced Pages (and the consequent need for faster deletion methods) and the recent wave of negative reactions against admins (which seem to be backed up solely by the claim that "admins are evil"). On the spirit of the Misplaced Pages, these polls try to be NPOV, pleasing all parties to some degree. Thus, we are left with a dozen of concurrent polls which are going to be implemented ASAP in case they obtain enough support votes. So while I do not fully agree with what is being proposed, there is no option other than voting. Now that the snowball has begun to roll down the hill, there is nothing to do other than supporting or being as loud as possible on the opposition. So I don't condemn what you are trying do, and as symbolic as it might be, I hereby change my vote to Abstain. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

You think our admins (apart from yourself, presumably) are ignorant layabouts? That's a pity; where did WP:FAITH go? Anyway, what's the fear over some false deletions: the article can be recreated in a jiffy. To survive that process, it would have to have different (and thus likely a little more) content — the end result is the same as expanding a non-deleted article. Too much fear over too small a problem. -Splash 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Why is the article being deleted in the first place? All three of the articles on the Sahaba were clearly good-faith attempts to create an article and all contained ample context to permit expansion (I expanded one of them myself, someone else revived the others). The article Qubit Field Theory, I've absolutely no idea why it was deleted. Here was an article with a perfectly good external link to a paper by David Deutsch, thus ensuring that the article can be expanded. The article on Gary Holt (footballer) (which was deleted as Gary Holt) identifies the man as a footballer for a world class team. These are utterly stupid deletions, inexcusable. If you cannot improve an article, mark it for someone else to improve, don't just delete what little information is available on the subject--that is usually the starting point for improvement.

So do I think my fellow administrators are stupid and lazy? Yes, I think when people delete good stubs they are being stupid or lazy, whether they are administrators or not. And no, if I deleted a good stub I would not be exempt. I'm also a Misplaced Pages editor and a good editor does not destroy useful information. VfD weeds out stupidity and laziness, that's why we need to keep it in the loop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Proposal P1

Note that if Tony Sidaway's new proposal (at Misplaced Pages: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)

There is a proposal P2 which I think is better worded but still flawed. I guess I'm becoming reconciled to the idea of just wading through deletion logs for the rest of my Misplaced Pages career. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

If we don't find a way to speedily delete vanity articles which fail to claim notability, the rest of us will be reconciled to wading through scores upon scores of obvious, blatant and unencyclopedic vanity articles of the Jennifer Pritchett variety on Votes for Deletion for the rest of Misplaced Pages's existence. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Biographical articles listed for deletion by administrators and subsequently kept

Bear in mind that all of the nominators of the following list would have the power to summarily delete the articles in question if this proposal passes.

June 30

• Stephen Hague (headed for a keep)
• Barbara Metcalf (headed for a keep) -
• Brian Blackwell (headed for a keep) -
• William Connolley (headed for keep) - nominator describes this person as a "nonnotable average scientist"
• Stefan Rahmstorf (headed for keep) - nominator describes this person as an "average professor"

June 29

• Bernd Nacke - nominator is of the opinion that Formula 1 racing drivers who competed in one Grand Prix aren't notable.

June 27

• Roy Burden, RCAF - nominator wanted deletion, it was merged
• Lee Latchford Evans - nominator wanted deletion, it was redirected

As a rebuttal to the above, here is a list of...

Alleged biographical articles listed for deletion and currently having unanimous delete votes

July 6

• Omar bartej
• Brooke evans
• Grazielle Corapi
• Stephen mcgrath
• Joseph Wright of Brazil
• Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi
• Jason Glaze
• Kyle Runge
• Huevos Grandes
• Jeremy Jones
• Kirk Thornton
• Cal Crawford
• Louise Skelly
• John Espana
• Daniel nagle sexton
• Sid Snider
• Ernst Herrera Legorreta
• Archie Alexander Ballew
• Luke Neuman
• Charlene Aquilina
• Pelloud
• Linda Aschbrenner
• Joseph T. Underwood
• Luke skinner

• I've no idea why you think this is some kind of rebuttal. It doesn't matter how many vanity biographical articles are VfD'd (and they should be) and get unanimous delete votes (and most of them do). The fact is that they're listed on VfD so if someone notable it is listed it usually (but not always, alas, Davey Winder being an example I caught tonight) gets saved.
• If an article needs VfDing, do it. Or opt for my streamlined proposal P1-A or the other one that Radiant wrote). If you don't want to look at VfD, don't. An article that's nominated for deletion by one person and left for five days and gets NO other votes, keep or delete, should be and usually is deleted.
• If you like, think of my list as a counter-example to your list. It shows that proposal 1 would inevitably produce casualties.
• A good article wrongly deleted by an administrator who is too lazy or ignorant to do even minimal research (and alas this is true of most of us) will be lost forever, usually before anybody else knew it existed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  • If you can get squillions of people to vote "yes" on every single school article ever created, surely you can find some admins to help you comb through the hundreds and thousands of useless articles deleted every day to find the one or two that might have been wrongfully deleted. We, the RC/CSD patrollers, comb through hundreds and thousands of newpages every day to cull out the junk. I cannot fathom why you think it's such a hardship, when it's the exact same thing that's done by RC patrollers every day. Maybe you should write TSDF: Tony Sidaway's Deletion Fighter. --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)