Two Google hits? My almost-unique name (there is one other person sharing it) gets 1950 google hits and there's no way I'd be worthy material for an article. dramatic 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Proposition III seems to be the most controversial of these criteria, and it perhaps needs more explication. The goal of Prop III is to be able to delete those pages that everybody knows won't survive VfD, but which are currently impossible to speedy delete. Some examples from VfD are Shatter, Shumaker, ZTC, and Arthur Wyatt. No Wikipedian thinks articles like this should be kept, yet each article has to be listed on VfD, voted on, deleted, and its debate archived. Overall this process likely wastes at least twenty minutes of our editors' time, when a speedy deletion could resolve the issue in seconds. - SimonP 07:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
The author should have some time to provide reference establishing the notability. Something like
It may sound like instruction creep, but the burden of bureaucratic tasks is on admins. Uninterested users simply add a template.
Thus - proposed change
-- Wikimol 09:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps simply all there needs to be is a time period after the addition of {{delete}} before it can actually be speedied. This would give anyone watching it (like the author) a little time to contest the speedy.
Furthermore (ugh - feature request!) when the article is speedied, anyone watching it receives a notice on their watchlist. Currently, when an article is deleted, it disappears entirely from the watchlist.
Crazy talk, I know, but still. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 22:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Many of the votes against say they agree with 'speedy'ing vanity articles but question how they can be recognised as such. One thing that is always a give-away (often in addition to superlative language about the person or group concerned) is the use of "I" and "We" in the text. Sometimes - but *extremely rarely* this can be because someone is not writing in their main language, usually it screams 'vanity!' -- Vamp: Willow 17:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We needn't consider proposal XI if it will make no difference to the success of III. The statement "Because proposal XI is a weaker alternative of proposal III, if both pass, Proposal III should be implemented" is no different from saying "If proposal III passes, proposal III should be implemented". ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 23:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This word is my main objection to prop III and the reason I hope it will not pass. A new CSD rule should cover only the clearest cases that end up in VfD. For vanities, I would rather add
Take a look at the edit history. Why did I put in that warning that seems so ridiculous? Because just previous, an admin had mistakenly deleted it. A quick check of the page it redirects to (just reading the first sentence, I think) clearly shows that it was notable. Admins are well-meaning, but they make mistakes, like the rest of us. Brianjd 08:01, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I've said it before (before the rearrangment happened; currently at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk#Google I think) but I'll say it again here: We are trying to determine whether an article is appropriate for an encyclopedia or not - we should not reference any organizations to do that. I'm talking about both Google and the Wikimedia Foundation here. Brianjd 08:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Two Google hits? My almost-unique name (there is one other person sharing it) gets 1950 google hits and there's no way I'd be worthy material for an article. dramatic 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Proposition III seems to be the most controversial of these criteria, and it perhaps needs more explication. The goal of Prop III is to be able to delete those pages that everybody knows won't survive VfD, but which are currently impossible to speedy delete. Some examples from VfD are Shatter, Shumaker, ZTC, and Arthur Wyatt. No Wikipedian thinks articles like this should be kept, yet each article has to be listed on VfD, voted on, deleted, and its debate archived. Overall this process likely wastes at least twenty minutes of our editors' time, when a speedy deletion could resolve the issue in seconds. - SimonP 07:08, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
The author should have some time to provide reference establishing the notability. Something like
It may sound like instruction creep, but the burden of bureaucratic tasks is on admins. Uninterested users simply add a template.
Thus - proposed change
-- Wikimol 09:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps simply all there needs to be is a time period after the addition of {{delete}} before it can actually be speedied. This would give anyone watching it (like the author) a little time to contest the speedy.
Furthermore (ugh - feature request!) when the article is speedied, anyone watching it receives a notice on their watchlist. Currently, when an article is deleted, it disappears entirely from the watchlist.
Crazy talk, I know, but still. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 22:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Many of the votes against say they agree with 'speedy'ing vanity articles but question how they can be recognised as such. One thing that is always a give-away (often in addition to superlative language about the person or group concerned) is the use of "I" and "We" in the text. Sometimes - but *extremely rarely* this can be because someone is not writing in their main language, usually it screams 'vanity!' -- Vamp: Willow 17:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We needn't consider proposal XI if it will make no difference to the success of III. The statement "Because proposal XI is a weaker alternative of proposal III, if both pass, Proposal III should be implemented" is no different from saying "If proposal III passes, proposal III should be implemented". ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 23:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This word is my main objection to prop III and the reason I hope it will not pass. A new CSD rule should cover only the clearest cases that end up in VfD. For vanities, I would rather add
Take a look at the edit history. Why did I put in that warning that seems so ridiculous? Because just previous, an admin had mistakenly deleted it. A quick check of the page it redirects to (just reading the first sentence, I think) clearly shows that it was notable. Admins are well-meaning, but they make mistakes, like the rest of us. Brianjd 08:01, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I've said it before (before the rearrangment happened; currently at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/General talk#Google I think) but I'll say it again here: We are trying to determine whether an article is appropriate for an encyclopedia or not - we should not reference any organizations to do that. I'm talking about both Google and the Wikimedia Foundation here. Brianjd 08:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)