Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Vincent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by some other admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable bio--KURANDO 11:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged. --GraemeL (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is not a speedy, as it asserts notability. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any such assertion. What do you see as a claim to notability? I don't want to make the same mistake again. --GraemeL (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "His actvities in hacker culture include projects for the Phone Losers of America (for which he emceed a panel at The Fifth H.O.P.E.,) writing and editing the Phone Losers of America spinoff zine United Phone Losers, and regular attendance of the New York City 2600 meetings." It's a patently absurd claim of notability, but it's a claim nonetheless. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That interpretation would make WP:CSD A7 pointless. If a claim is patently absurd it isn't in this sense a claim at all. But in this case, it isn't a question of absurdity. If those statements are true it still doesn't make the person notable for wikipedia purposes, not even arguably. Thus what they claim isn't "notability". This should be speedy deleted. DES (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that in its current form, CSD A7 is far too weak. But that's what it says. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See` Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios) for my views on this at greatger length. These views are not accepted by all. But I think pretty much every one would accpt that a claim which, if absloutely true would not be notable enough for a wikipedia article is not a "claim of notability" under A7. Check the debates at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 to see what people said as they were discussing what became CSD`A7. DES (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that in its current form, CSD A7 is far too weak. But that's what it says. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That interpretation would make WP:CSD A7 pointless. If a claim is patently absurd it isn't in this sense a claim at all. But in this case, it isn't a question of absurdity. If those statements are true it still doesn't make the person notable for wikipedia purposes, not even arguably. Thus what they claim isn't "notability". This should be speedy deleted. DES (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "His actvities in hacker culture include projects for the Phone Losers of America (for which he emceed a panel at The Fifth H.O.P.E.,) writing and editing the Phone Losers of America spinoff zine United Phone Losers, and regular attendance of the New York City 2600 meetings." It's a patently absurd claim of notability, but it's a claim nonetheless. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any such assertion. What do you see as a claim to notability? I don't want to make the same mistake again. --GraemeL (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reserved. I have greeted and pointed the intial editor here. Also gave heads up to RV himself. Alf 14:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I see no assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. I so no claim of notaility here. DES (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Everyone who's voted so far has said speedy delete. Why do the speedy tags keep getting removed? This seems a textbook case of A7, as explained above. Friday (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable JoJan 18:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.