On 5/15/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote:
On May 14, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, but by "what's the
lesson", I mean, in what way, if any,
should Wikipedia consider changing its policies considering there is
now such a big payoff for people adding vanity information.
*shrug* Just need to enforce CSD more stringently, that's all.
Philip L. Welch
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone speedy
deletion. As an admin, I would look at a speedy nomination on vanity as
a) if it is a non-notable biography or otherwise appears to meet speedy
deletion criteria, delete it;
b) if it doesn't appear to meet speedy deletion criteria but doesn't appear
notable and/or verifiable, I would propose it for deletion or list it at
articles for deletion depending on how likely I think it is that people
would vote to keep it.
c) if it appears notable and verifiable, through what links here and a
Google search keep the article and improve it or flag it for improvement.
I wouldn't delete it on vanity grounds as it is not a valid grounds for
deletion. The problem with vanity articles is that they generally do not
meet notability and/or verifiability criteria. If the subjects of these
articles do meet such criteria, they should not edit the articles under
NPOV. We also need to ensure that the article is not written in such a way
that it gives an unduly negative impression of the person.
The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of admins to
unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my view is a
good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a daily
basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood by many
people who nominate articles.
In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out articles without
merit once we become aware of them.