Extremely blatant vanity articles listed on
Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic at least for 3 days without any improvement or dispute. (Examples of blatant vanites are 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—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.
Note: Because proposal XI is a weaker alternative of proposal III, if both pass, Proposal III should be implemented.
Overly subjective, plus I'd rather leave the Google test out of CSD.
Ливай |
☺ 03:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The weird thing is, we all know what you mean, and I think everyone wants these articles gone without a lag, but this wording would allow too broad an "interpretation".
Dr Zen 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So if the article creator improves or expands it, making a better article even though its still vanity inappropriate for Wikipedia, it can stay? The proposal also ignores the fact that the creator will almost always dispute deletion, meaning that under this proposal the article still couldn't be speedy'd. This proposal is useless.
David Johnson [
T|
C] 13:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Suffers from the same flaws as
Proposal III, and 3 days is not enough time. --
Netoholic@ 20:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Just adding an extra complication. Use vfd. --
Francs2000 |
Talk [[]] 20:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keith D. Tyler[
flame 21:03, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Bad idea, and the sneaky "unamended version implication" clause (which has been rejected elsewhere -- why not here?) is deplorable and unacceptable.
Shane King 01:42, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) Adding more ambiguity is not the way to fix ambiguity.
Cyrius|
✎ -- still too subjective. Highly subjective decisions should be left to VfD, that's what it's for.
I like the part about being able to move autobiographies. Apart from that, I think this proposal gives too much risk of erroneous deletion. How many Wikipedians know that
Category:Articles which may be unencyclopedic even exists?
arj 17:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Votes For Deletion!
✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"blatant" is both too broad and too subjective.
Gazpacho 18:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To subjective, and give it time and VfD not speedy.
[maestro] 12:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SocratesJedi 07:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Google hits or lack thereof do not measure notability. Time must be given to establish or disestablish that someone is notable.
No; we need categorized deletion instead.
Ben Standeven 08:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
bernlin2000∞ 16:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): ALL vanity articles should be given to VfD, even if they are quite plainly useless vanity articles. Vanity articles are too subjective to be quickly deleted.
DAVODD 21:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Don't need a policy in speedy deletion to move vanity to user pages.
As I said earlier, difficult to judge. 3 days is too less (unless that actually means 15 days, just like "7 days" in
WP:CP means 40 days). --
Paddu 21:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Paddu and others that said 3 days is too short. --
JuntungWu 02:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3 days is too short a time for this. VfD once again handles this fine.
23skidoo 06:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agree with 23skidoo -- the current process, although not perfect, works well and is much preferable to expanding speedy. --
Visviva 10:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As stated above, I have seen articles on notable people such as musicians, industrialists and significant scientists described as vanity. Best to leave it to vfd.
Capitalistroadster 01:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Consequencefree|
Ardent†∈]] 07:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Vfd candidate, not speedy. It's too hard for individuals to decide notability.
BesigedB(
talk) 17:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Anything requiring peer review is not a CSD issue
review is necessary on all 'vanity' pages.
Pedant 03:51, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Jamirus99 04:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Exact same thing as number three. Wording still suggests that the writer has it, in general, for bands that are not well known. Read the current
WP:VANITY page to see that pages on start-up bands are allowed.
Eric119 A lag time for speedy deletion? 06:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)