On May 14, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Keith Old 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.
Vanity isn't a valid grounds for deletion at any level let alone
Vanity isn't, but non-notable biography is, as is patent nonsense. If
John Q. Highschoolstudent writes a vanity page, it'll say (in general
terms) one of the following:
1. John Q. Highschoolstudent is on the track team and plays a mean
game of Halo.
2. John Q. Highschoolstudent won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in 2006.
1 is non-notable bio, 2 is patent nonsense. Those two CSD's alone are
the vanity fork--almost all vanity articles will fall within at least
one of tehm.
The criteria for speedy deletion limit the capacity of
unilaterally delete articles without proper process which in my
view is a
good thing. As someone who looks at speedy deletion articles on a
basis, the criteria for speedy deletion are not as well understood
people who nominate articles.
Likewise, as someone with much speedy deletion experience, if it
wasn't for the loose construction of CSD used by admins on a daily
basis, our deletion processes would be even more backlogged than they
In general, our policies are strong enough to keep out
merit once we become aware of them.
That was my point as well.
Philip L. Welch