Wikipedia talk:Deletion of vanity articles

message: The wording isn't very good. "Asserting" something means to me to say it plainly in the text. So articles would say "X is important because he..." I don't think articles actually should do this. You can argue that an article should make apparent the importance of their subject but it's nonsense to suggest they should assert it. 
Also, there was a fair amount of opposition to this. Yes, it got roughly 74% support, but that's a long way from consensus -- not that anyone particularly cares about consensus in Wikipedia. More than 40 editors expressed opposition.
A comparison of porn models and senators is nonsense. I can name dozens of the former and only a handful of the latter (if we are talking about American senators; I don't think I could manage even one of the senators here in Australia). To me, the former are more notable.
This is the problem of allowing people to decide what is or what is not "important" or "significant". Clearly, I wouldn't delete American senators. But you might delete porn models because you do not know them, or entomologists, or viola players, even though they "assert their notability" in the prescribed way, under this criterion. Grace Note 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not many porn stars even wind up on VFD, and those that do, it is mainly a cut and paste job. Many of the NN people I see on VFD are students, friends and garage bands. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You're right, there's nothing magical about 70%. But if it must go to a poll, there must necessarily be a predefined threshold (one of the reasons that polls are evil, imo) and a 3:1 ratio is pretty decisive. To play with the opposite argument: consensus doesn't require any particular figure; it would be easy enough to claim consensus at 50%+1vote, but we are not a democracy. We use consensus to avoid tyranny by the majority, but we can have tyranny by the minority too. -Splash 22:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: wording, opposition, comparison

message: 74% seems a tad low for such a radical proposal.  I'll be watching events closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not much of a consensus

message: David Persons was tagged for speedy deletion as vanity, and I removed the tag because I felt a clear assertion of notability was made.  Was I wrong to remove the tag?  Thanks — Pekinensis 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have misunderstood my action, which was a move against speedy deletion of the article.  I did not remove the article, but the tag that marked the article as a candidate for speedy deletion.  — Pekinensis 23:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: Does the new July 2005 policy apply to multiple people / a group of people.  i am using Anstice as an example.  i'm tempted to speedy it cuz i'm tired of writing up the same explanation under VfD (i.e. non-notable, etc.) -- Bubbachuck 07:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons vs. person 

message: The cleanup tag for potentially vanity articles is . It should be noted that articles in the associated category are either candidates for deletion according to this policy, or one step from that situation. --Joy [shallot] 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tags 

message: CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particularly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification proposal 

message: Has anyone thought about having a similar policy for articles about non-notable businesses? -- SCZenz 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CORP  --  W  P Talk 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was unclear.  I meant the speedy deletion option, which does not seem to exist on the page you referenced. -- SCZenz 00:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been considerabel discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Spam#"Delete. Spam" and "Delete. Advertisement". I oppose any such extension of speedy deletion, precisely becauae it is often a good idea to re-write an article about a buisness to remove promotion and PoV, and it is not easy to tell at a glance if a buisness is notable or not. DES (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info.  I'll take my comments there. -- SCZenz 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  expansion to businesses 

message: Wile E. Heresiarch has said that A7 applies also for non-notable bands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost in fusion and accused a user who disputed the speedy for "wasting other people's time". Does A7 really apply for bands? I thought A7 only applied for indidvidual people or am I missing something? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not, Sjakkalle. A7 applies to individual persons and individual persons only. Articles on bands, companies, the local grocery store, and similar institutions that do not "assert the notability" of their subjects are the province of AfD, where they are usually deleted for not being "notable," sometimes per WP:MUSIC or similar criteria.—encephalon 10:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does A7 apply for bands? 

message: I have deleted the word "remotely" from the sentence:
:Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. 
The word is redundant. Either something is plausible or it isn't. The only effect of having the word there is to undermine the balanced judgement of plausibility, by effectively suggesting something implausible should be given validity. Tyrenius 12:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of "remotely"

message: i wish to bring into notice that various articles concerning cheap films made in Hollywood and rest of the world are making their presence on wikipedia articles. i feel it is a wastage of resources,as most of the time they just duplicate from IMDB. i feel that at wikipedia, we can confine ourselves to define only those films that are notably known for their aesthetics and art values. 
also, if there is common consensus, can we have a different criticism section for religious texts and practices, instead of defining their criticism on the main page itself.nids 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles about spaghetti westerns and easterns 

message: Just added important note - we've had legal sword-rattling about this from people when a deleted article about them was called "vanity", and they're looking for someone to sue to remove this slight from their name. (And I get to calm a lot of them down. Wheee!) In normal discourse, calling an article "vanity" would be a defamatory assertion unless you can clearly show they were responsible for it. I ask people to discourage such usage where possible. - David Gerard 10:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're calling it "autobiography" now. Less inflammatory.--Atlantima 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding use of the word "vanity" 

message: This article seems to have originated from the authoress herself and anonymous IP's in her home town in Texas.  Published pulp fiction yes (loads) but does she meet notability? A poster here  is claiming to be her, is stating we have her real name wrong but their isn't any real bio around that one expects from a notable authoress – just Advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lori Wilde