Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmoviebandit1
Template:Bmoviebandit1 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to acheive a clear consensus to delete, this template is kept. However, I note that the Bmovie Bandit phenomenon seems to have died down and this template may no longer be necessary. It is no longer in use on any article. I also note that a majority of the keep the template votes came early in the discussion while a majority of the delete the template votes came late in the discussion. If after a reasonable period (perhaps another month) the issue remains calm and the template remains unused, this template may be renominated. Rossami 23:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ignoring all the discussion about the Bmovie Bandit's actual work, my best interpretation of the votes about the template are:
| Keep template | Delete template | Abstain or Ambiguous vote |
This template is being tagged on factual stubs, saying "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay." Indeed, if they are factual, they should stay, and shouldn't have this unnecessary template tagged on. Gzornenplatz 05:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and delete "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay.", since I disagree with that contention. RickK 06:03, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Not to worry. I'll be happy to drop the line about the factual entries. I truly do not understand why anyone would allow these "entries" to stay. I was simply following the suggestion of another user. I realize I wrote the stub, but I'd like to vote to keep with revision. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Done. In fact, I noticed that there were some other edits to the template, so there must be others who agree. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Now you just made it worse. The articles are factual (if you disagree, please point out what is not factual on Staci Greason), and we do not delete factual articles on valid topics (if you don't think we should have any article on Staci Greason on grounds of insufficient notability, feel free to put it on VfD), so the sentence you removed was the only one that made sense. I don't understand what your whole problem with those stubs is. Contrary to what you seem to think, no user is ever obligated to expand any stub. You can ignore them. But instead you want to delete factual material. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Gzornenplatz must like Sneaky Vandalism. --TIB 06:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain what is "sneaky vandalism" about Staci Greason. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- stars on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992. - an impossible contradiction. RickK 07:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- It says starred, and already did so when this template was added. Gzornenplatz 07:13, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Bad grammar is an indicator of ignorance or stupidity, not vandalism. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In response to Gzornenplat'z sneaky vandalism question: Wikipedia:Vandalism... at the bottom. --TIB 08:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that you said 'about staci greason'. Still, the fact that the diff between the first and second edits point to botvandalism. --TIB 08:53, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- stars on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992. - an impossible contradiction. RickK 07:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain what is "sneaky vandalism" about Staci Greason. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- If anyone can think of a better alternative, or would be interested in nominating themselves to cleanup each of the Bandit substubs that appear, then by all means, vote to delete. In the meantime, I vote to keep this, even if the wording seems a little harsh. Rhymeless 07:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The articles are factual and do not necessitate urgent "cleanup"; like any other article, they can be improved by anyone who wants, but they don't have to. Gzornenplatz 07:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Normally I'd agree with you; I'm very much an anti-deletionist; But I can't help but believe that because of the inferior nature of these substubs, they are likely to remain undeveloped for quite some time. Furthermore, having a massive number of distinctly unremarkable substubs, of such inferior quality, reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that merely ignoring these substubs, hoping that someday, a mysterious someone will come and make them useful, and furthermore, that hundreds 'more will not be made in the meantime, is not an option in this circumstance. Rhymeless 07:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You don't have to hope that someone will improve them; they are already useful. You seem to have the misconception that stubs are only placeholders which may prompt others to create useful articles, but are not themselves useful. But even if you knew for sure no one will ever expand the Staci Greason article, it provides the information that she was an actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992 - that's better than nothing for someone who seeks information on her, isn't it? How can that reflect worse on Wikipedia than lacking any information on a topic someone might look for? Those who don't look for it won't even see it, other than by clicking on Random page, and if that's a problem the better solution would be to implement a preferences option for a minimum article length for Random pages, and the default value could be high enough to exclude stubs like that. Gzornenplatz 07:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure I really follow you on this. These substubs, are like leaving bricks in the middle of the sidewalk. Sure, you could stand on them, and get a slightly better view, or carry it off and make something better of it. But it's far more likely that somebody will trip over it or kick it into the street, or simply ignore it. It's the same way with these pages. I think it's a bit of a flimsy excuse to say that these substub pages *might* help somebody, when, more than anything, they're simply in the way. Rhymeless 07:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That analogy doesn't hold water. How could the stubs possibly be "in the way" (of what?)? If you don't care for them, just ignore them, they can't harm you. Gzornenplatz 07:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- On reflection, no that probably isn't the best analogy I've ever used, although it is 5 AM here. However, I maintain that these pages ARE in the way (if only because they are consuming an inordinant amount of various editors' time) and are detrimental to Wikipedia. I would have more problems with this template, if these substubs were not apparently the product of a single vandal/bot. It is the nature of their appearance, more than their content, that is troublesome, and would require this temporary template. Rhymeless 08:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No editor is obliged to spend any time on those pages. You actually want to delete them or put this template on them - that is spending time. Instead you could just ignore them. How is factual information detrimental to Wikipedia? Gzornenplatz 08:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- On reflection, no that probably isn't the best analogy I've ever used, although it is 5 AM here. However, I maintain that these pages ARE in the way (if only because they are consuming an inordinant amount of various editors' time) and are detrimental to Wikipedia. I would have more problems with this template, if these substubs were not apparently the product of a single vandal/bot. It is the nature of their appearance, more than their content, that is troublesome, and would require this temporary template. Rhymeless 08:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That analogy doesn't hold water. How could the stubs possibly be "in the way" (of what?)? If you don't care for them, just ignore them, they can't harm you. Gzornenplatz 07:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure I really follow you on this. These substubs, are like leaving bricks in the middle of the sidewalk. Sure, you could stand on them, and get a slightly better view, or carry it off and make something better of it. But it's far more likely that somebody will trip over it or kick it into the street, or simply ignore it. It's the same way with these pages. I think it's a bit of a flimsy excuse to say that these substub pages *might* help somebody, when, more than anything, they're simply in the way. Rhymeless 07:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You don't have to hope that someone will improve them; they are already useful. You seem to have the misconception that stubs are only placeholders which may prompt others to create useful articles, but are not themselves useful. But even if you knew for sure no one will ever expand the Staci Greason article, it provides the information that she was an actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992 - that's better than nothing for someone who seeks information on her, isn't it? How can that reflect worse on Wikipedia than lacking any information on a topic someone might look for? Those who don't look for it won't even see it, other than by clicking on Random page, and if that's a problem the better solution would be to implement a preferences option for a minimum article length for Random pages, and the default value could be high enough to exclude stubs like that. Gzornenplatz 07:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Normally I'd agree with you; I'm very much an anti-deletionist; But I can't help but believe that because of the inferior nature of these substubs, they are likely to remain undeveloped for quite some time. Furthermore, having a massive number of distinctly unremarkable substubs, of such inferior quality, reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that merely ignoring these substubs, hoping that someday, a mysterious someone will come and make them useful, and furthermore, that hundreds 'more will not be made in the meantime, is not an option in this circumstance. Rhymeless 07:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The articles are factual and do not necessitate urgent "cleanup"; like any other article, they can be improved by anyone who wants, but they don't have to. Gzornenplatz 07:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The "article" said "starred" only after someone else fixed it. Also, anyone who de-contents existing articles and turns them into this sort of nonsense after repeated warnings is a vandal. So many people have done such terrific work here. Why should this person be any different? Why should we allow this kind of nonsense to stay? It's been suggested that I put these up for deletion on this page...and I've been crucified. It's been suggested that these be turned into redirects...and others revert them. Still another user suggested that a template be made because he recognized a real problem...and I find myself defending its inclusion. I've cleaned up more of these things than I can count...and I just don't want to do it anymore. I've left this project on three occasions because the frustration I feel over this individual was becoming too much to take. Now, it is jeopardizing my nomination for administratorship. Some hobby I've chosen, eh? :^) - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- So someone fixed it, what's the problem then? Even if the user vandalized other articles, that doesn't mean that every article created by that user is vandalism. Articles like Staci Greason are not "nonsense". This template is nonsense. And if you don't want to clean these articles up, just don't do it. And don't take things personally, no one is crucifying you. Gzornenplatz 07:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Your heated demands that this vandal's articles remain would have one wonder if you weren't involved in their creation. RickK 08:27, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Unworthy of comment. Gzornenplatz 08:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Your heated demands that this vandal's articles remain would have one wonder if you weren't involved in their creation. RickK 08:27, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- So someone fixed it, what's the problem then? Even if the user vandalized other articles, that doesn't mean that every article created by that user is vandalism. Articles like Staci Greason are not "nonsense". This template is nonsense. And if you don't want to clean these articles up, just don't do it. And don't take things personally, no one is crucifying you. Gzornenplatz 07:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, strongly. The idea of putting this in an article seems so counter-productive that it's almost painful to see it exists. Either clean up the articles in question, delete them through VfD if their subjects are too obscure, or just ignore them. Everyking 12:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. normally on something like this I'd vote delete. But, many wonderful wikipedians have put in much time to fighting the B Movie Bandit in a variety of ways, this is a recent idea, we should see how it works out. If this template can save some amazing contributors a bit of time, then its worth it for sure —siroχo 13:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The template is absurd. But it only exists because too many people oppose other responses to this "flooding". Flooding is usually counted as vandalism on the web. Some call it denial of service attacks. It means that time and energy spent on the flood prevents normal activities. Ignoring garbage is an option only for those who care nothing about quality. Fixing up litter dropped purposely over and over and over again by someone who won't stop isn't what anyone is here for. If people don't like the template, then argue instead for quick deletion of the articles. Stop claiming that articles that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia should be allowed or that others should fix them up as fast as they come in, that those few who really know the B-movie area should have all their time taken up every day dealing with litter dropped by one editor. Jallan 15:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have these articles. Other encyclopedias don't have any articles at all on such subjects; they should be embarrassed. If nobody ever touched one of these after its creation, we'd still be better off than we were when we started, because we'd have a little more info than before. On the other hand, wikifying one of these articles can be done in a matter of seconds. In a few seconds more, one can add a link to IMDb. And so on. But if they are just deleted, we might never get articles on some of these subjects again, and no editors with time to kill would ever come across them to improve them. Everyking 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If these bother people so much, why are they looking at them? Revert any vandalism from this person, even hand out 24 hour blocks if it gets to be too much of a problem, but there's no need for a template. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:48, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
- I really don't mind if this template is deleted. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and I knew that creating it wouldn't deter this person. It was intended as a temporary measure to alert users who might not be aware of the problem, and if it's going to cause this much contention, I'd just as soon see it gone. However, it's easy to take things somewhat personally given the kind of grief and mixed signals I've gotten over this. I tried from the get-go to reach out to this person with everything from pleading to out-and-out invective. I tried the "carrot" approach just last week, right up until the time an existing article was de-contented. Meelar has the right idea. Let's just block the range from submitting any anonymous entries. A legitimate user would sign up in a moment, and if the Bandit signed in with a user name, it could be blocked if the mischief continues. It's also a bit hard to swallow the fact that this numbskull gets a free pass to litter the site while users who try to act for the common good have to fend off attempts to stop the littering, and I'm referring to users other than myself. - Lucky 6.9 19:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- By this point I would think that all of the "is it vandalism, can we ban this range, can we use this temple" arguments have taken up more of our users' time than actually fixing these stubs would have. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. Many users have already spent a great deal of time on cleaning up, expanding and redirecting these entries and it's become extremely tiresome. At no time has this person shown the least inclination that they're willing to play by the rules. I've already fixed a countless number of these things and so have other honest users as indicated, and this hasn't been some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a clueless newbie. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If it's tiresome, stop it. Why do you feel obliged to expand these stubs? We have thousands of stubs - why are these particular ones such a problem for you? Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I apologise for the strong language, but I'm frankly disgusted by those people who insist on keeping these, yet won't spend any of their time cleaning these up or even wikifying them. Rather, they're happy to let these sit, idle, forever, or wait until some other Wikipedian spends their valuable time cleaning them up. Bye bye any form of quality control. This isn't an argument about inclusionism vs deletionism. It's an argument about a vandal who's driving numerous users up the wall. Unless you, yourself are willing to do the work, for gods sake, put up or shut up. Ambi 03:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to cite two recent examples. Another user put this template on the Staci Greason article soon after it was modified with little more than wikis, bold face and a substub template. Twenty minutes after I left a terse note on an anon user page, the Bandit returned on the same proxy with another substub for a little-known actress named Sharon Leal. No "B-Movie" template was posted, but the only other contributions were to formatting and not content. I expanded it a bit. The point is, no one really wants to expand these things and I don't blame them. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't think vfd is the place for this discussion; what's being discussed here is essentially policy rather than whether an article should be deleted As to the issue at hand, hanging an ugly sign around somebody's neck seems to me to be a most decidedly un-wiki approach to (not, actually) resolving this type of situation. I agree strongly with Everyking's comments above: we must treat the articles, not the template. Consider this a delete vote, both for the template and this way of doing things. Jgm 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's an ugly sign that would never have been necessary if this had not been allowed to get to this point. They're not useful contributions, he's not a newbie, and how the heck else would you resolve the situation? Ambi 08:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why the heck are correct facts not useful contributions? Is there any precedent for deleting articles just because they're unwikified or have poor grammar? There's a lot of worse stuff on Cleanup. Why are you singling out those actor stubs? I don't see any "situation" to "resolve". Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Gzornenplatz, have you actually looked through this user's contributions? I'm not anti-stub, and neither is anyone pushing for the deletion of these. Stubs are good. Sub-sub-stubs are bad. Particularly when they're en masse, every day, for months. And moreover, no one wants to expand them. So either they sit there, one badly written sentence, forever, or someone who didn't want to in the first place takes up some of their time, that could've been spent doing something useful, fixing them up. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Even if they just sit there, they are useful information. They are short stubs, but not too short. Maybe our whole "stub" terminology is a bit unfortunate. There are longer articles which could just as much be described as "stubs" because of all the relevant information that could still be added. On the other hand those actors, precisely because they are not particularly important, don't need much longer treatment. I think short entries, even one-liners, have their legitimate place. If someone has heard the name "Staci Greason" he can look it up and find that she's a soap actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992, which may be just enough information. Instead you would rather have his search turn out blank. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
- If you think the current stubs are useless, how exactly is adding an insult-box to each helping? They go from being tiny bits of fact that, should someone stumble across one, might eventually be the basis of an improved article to a tiny bit of fact with a major, somewhat mysterious borderline-personal-attack caveat attached, that nobody is likely to want to mess with. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Gzornenplatz, have you actually looked through this user's contributions? I'm not anti-stub, and neither is anyone pushing for the deletion of these. Stubs are good. Sub-sub-stubs are bad. Particularly when they're en masse, every day, for months. And moreover, no one wants to expand them. So either they sit there, one badly written sentence, forever, or someone who didn't want to in the first place takes up some of their time, that could've been spent doing something useful, fixing them up. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why the heck are correct facts not useful contributions? Is there any precedent for deleting articles just because they're unwikified or have poor grammar? There's a lot of worse stuff on Cleanup. Why are you singling out those actor stubs? I don't see any "situation" to "resolve". Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
- It's an ugly sign that would never have been necessary if this had not been allowed to get to this point. They're not useful contributions, he's not a newbie, and how the heck else would you resolve the situation? Ambi 08:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- A vote for deletion of this template should be seen as a means of volunteering your services toward fixing the problem with the user/cleaning Bandit entries up. Rhymeless 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Oh piffle to this. A vote to delete template is what it is: a vote not to destroy whatever use these harmless stubs might have by adding an insult to them. As others have pointed out, there are more useful ways for most folks to spend their time than fixing harmless stubs. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete the template, keep the articles. Clean-up/VfD/ignore the articles, as appropriate, but they're substubs, not candidates for speedy deletion, as the template says. Compare these articles with Rambot's articles on U.S. towns: they consist of a bit of (some would say "almost useless") information, they can function as a starting point for a useful article; most won't, but those don't actually hurt anyone. Eugene van der Pijll 15:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete the template and keep the articles. What harm does it do to keep the articles, even as substubs? I've said this before, but if Wikipedia is headed for the rocks, it certainly isn't because of an excess of factual information. Wikisux 02:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this template reflects much more poorly on wikipedia than any malformed substub ever could. Yes, I would be perfectly happy to wikify stubs you are unhappy with. Just have a list of them somewhere and I will occasionally fix a few. No, I don't consider it a waste of my time. (Well, no more than any other work I do here) The Steve 20:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm also in favor of deleting B-movie substubs but that's an entirely separate discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.