The result was delete. There's good argument that the subject meets our notability guidelines. However, those guidelines are to be applied with common sense, and the clear consensus here is to remove the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is about a known spam vandal ( User:Universe Daily) who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for massive spamming, sockpuppetry, and abusive behaviour. It serves only as a vanity piece to further this vandal's aims. Furthermore, while I want to assume good faith, the article's creator ( User:Dervishdude) appears suspicious. His/her first action was to post a complete article (with references) about Wayne Smith. Dervishdude's third contribution was to the article aquatic ape hypothesis, to restore an external link owned by Wayne Smith (yet another frame-redirect URLs). That URL had been added by an IP just over half an hour previously, and deleted shortly thereafter. The same IP ( User:124.186.69.185, whose previous abusive behaviour indicates he is yet another Universe Daily IP sock) created a redlink to Wayne Smith (cybersquatter) 13 minutes before it was even created by Dervishdude. Dervishdude's only edits after that involved the Wayne Smith article, as well as adding a redirect at Wayne Robert Smith - a page addressed under this deletion debate a few years ago. Dervishdude has also identified as being from the same IP range as many of the UD IP sockpuppets. (Note the contribution history for Talk:Wayne Smith (cybersquatter), where Dervishdude signs comments posted by 124.186.78.43 and 121.223.8.38.) Ckatz chat spy 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I feel there are several points to consider here. One, is being a spammer notable enough to rate an article? Two, given Smith's history of abuse of Wikipedia, are there extenuating circumstances that would suggest we use extra discretion in deciding if an article is warranted? (For example, are we just feeding the ego that seems to regard Wikipedia as his personal directory service?) Finally, based on what I've observed, the editor who created the article is in all likelihood User:Universe Daily (aka Wayne Smith). Given that he is banned outright, we'd have to remove his contributions anyway - which wouldn't leave an article at all. To be honest, I listed this at AfD based on the subject; if I'd known at the time that it was probably posted by UD himself, I'd more likely have seen it as a speedy delete. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm conflicted. My instinct is to totally agree with Ckatz per WP:DENY. However, if A. B. wants it kept, what is the right response? I would like to comment on some issues with the article if it were kept.
The result was delete. There's good argument that the subject meets our notability guidelines. However, those guidelines are to be applied with common sense, and the clear consensus here is to remove the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is about a known spam vandal ( User:Universe Daily) who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for massive spamming, sockpuppetry, and abusive behaviour. It serves only as a vanity piece to further this vandal's aims. Furthermore, while I want to assume good faith, the article's creator ( User:Dervishdude) appears suspicious. His/her first action was to post a complete article (with references) about Wayne Smith. Dervishdude's third contribution was to the article aquatic ape hypothesis, to restore an external link owned by Wayne Smith (yet another frame-redirect URLs). That URL had been added by an IP just over half an hour previously, and deleted shortly thereafter. The same IP ( User:124.186.69.185, whose previous abusive behaviour indicates he is yet another Universe Daily IP sock) created a redlink to Wayne Smith (cybersquatter) 13 minutes before it was even created by Dervishdude. Dervishdude's only edits after that involved the Wayne Smith article, as well as adding a redirect at Wayne Robert Smith - a page addressed under this deletion debate a few years ago. Dervishdude has also identified as being from the same IP range as many of the UD IP sockpuppets. (Note the contribution history for Talk:Wayne Smith (cybersquatter), where Dervishdude signs comments posted by 124.186.78.43 and 121.223.8.38.) Ckatz chat spy 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I feel there are several points to consider here. One, is being a spammer notable enough to rate an article? Two, given Smith's history of abuse of Wikipedia, are there extenuating circumstances that would suggest we use extra discretion in deciding if an article is warranted? (For example, are we just feeding the ego that seems to regard Wikipedia as his personal directory service?) Finally, based on what I've observed, the editor who created the article is in all likelihood User:Universe Daily (aka Wayne Smith). Given that he is banned outright, we'd have to remove his contributions anyway - which wouldn't leave an article at all. To be honest, I listed this at AfD based on the subject; if I'd known at the time that it was probably posted by UD himself, I'd more likely have seen it as a speedy delete. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm conflicted. My instinct is to totally agree with Ckatz per WP:DENY. However, if A. B. wants it kept, what is the right response? I would like to comment on some issues with the article if it were kept.