Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Anne Abraham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 06:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Textbook vanity. Barfooz (talk) 04:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If this isn't vanity, what is? — JIP | Talk 04:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Can't we remove the obvious vanity articles faster...seems silly to drag out a 5-day vote on something this obvious.Tobycat 04:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I would agree with Tobycat about something this obvious. However, I have seen many cases where an article on a notable person was labeled "vanity" by a VfD nominator because the person was unfamiliar to the nominator and the stub was too vague to make the notability clear on its face. In those cases, the exposure has often brought out the additional facts. - DS1953 05:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Patent vanity. I hear you, DS1943, but it is the author's responsiblity to establish notability, not the reader's. --Xcali 05:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you Xcali, I am just pointing out that what looks like vanity to one person is not always the case. Speedy deletions don't have the same chance of sifting the wheat from the chaff. DS1953 05:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I've seen a couple horrible articles that were speedied but actually had some potentially useful info in there. I stubbed one of them, and a couple people went on and fixed it up to an okay level. On this article, Delete.
- Two editors are simply not enough. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- Xcali, please review the speedy delete criteria. Vanity is not one of them, no matter how egregious. Denni☯ 03:19, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you Xcali, I am just pointing out that what looks like vanity to one person is not always the case. Speedy deletions don't have the same chance of sifting the wheat from the chaff. DS1953 05:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Well there are a number of articles that have been listed as vanity that went on to be kept, but they tend to be articles about professors and researchers rather than undergraduates. This one, like every other undergraduate article I've seen, is not encyclopedic.Average Earthman 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: 15 year old student. BTW, I'm as big a hanging judge as any, but I agree wholeheartedly that vanity articles shouldn't be speedy candidates unless they are thoroughly obvious and egregious. I.e. I support leaving their speedy deletion to official admin abuse that no one will complain of. I know that's hypocritical, but it's the best way, because there certainly are cases of even obvious vanity that have been potentially valuable. (If only someone could propose a new system for speedying articles after a delay!) Geogre 11:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This content is what home pages supplied by ISPs are for. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for home pages. Delete. Uncle G 13:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, Rachael is a great person, I met her once. Karatloz 17:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a who's who or a social register. --Jim Abraham 21:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.