Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaddeus J. Hogan
Very Short Vanity. --fvw* 23:10, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
- delete almost speedy. Dunc|☺ 23:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. You could probably get away with speedying it. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 23:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you could, if you had absolutely no respect for the community. I daresay there'll be an admin along in the next while who fits that bill. Dr Zen 00:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I know we can't speedy for vanity, but it did fit pretty cleanly into "very short articles with little or no context". You can always persue it at votes for undeletion if you don't agree. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 01:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I already perused it. I don't believe it did fit that criterion. Clearly, neither did you, given that you suggested you'd have to "get away with" speedying it. Dr Zen 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well perhaps it was pushing the definition of "very short" slightly. I was suggesting listing it as a speedy, then the admins can decide if it fits the criteria or not and either delete it or leave it. I trust them to make the right decision based on Wikipedia policy and their experience. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 01:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I already perused it. I don't believe it did fit that criterion. Clearly, neither did you, given that you suggested you'd have to "get away with" speedying it. Dr Zen 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I know we can't speedy for vanity, but it did fit pretty cleanly into "very short articles with little or no context". You can always persue it at votes for undeletion if you don't agree. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 01:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you could, if you had absolutely no respect for the community. I daresay there'll be an admin along in the next while who fits that bill. Dr Zen 00:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Speedied it. Criteron 4. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Speak of the devil. Dr Zen 01:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd kindly ask that you not commit libel, thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)- I don't believe I did. Dr Zen 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hyperbole and "joking" doesn't always come across well in text. It honestly *did* look serious until you told me otherwise. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't believe I did. Dr Zen 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Speak of the devil. Dr Zen 01:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm with Dante on this one - should be speedily deleted. I don't understand why Zen would wish to keep it. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- I don't want to keep it. I'm content for it to be deleted with due process. Dr Zen 04:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I still think it should be speedied, but as long as it's probably not going to be speedied, it should definitely be deleted through VfD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:28, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete if nothing else of value can be added. EventHorizon 04:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this vanity insanity. Shane King 04:18, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- While this is an obvious delete as vanity (probably a newbie error), it is not a speedy delete according to the current specific criteria at WP:CSD. Case 4 as it was originally approved is supposed to be very limited. The example for case 4 was carefully chosen. This article may be very short and fails to meet encyclopedic standards on several other levels but it does have context - it is clearly an attempt at a biography entry. I think that Dr Zen is arguing not that we should keep this particular article but that we should be very disciplined about our use of speedy deletes lest it become abuse. (In case it wasn't obvious, delete if not moved to a user page during the discussion period.) Rossami (talk) 04:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rossami. Very well put.Dr Zen 04:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)