Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Amiott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity, not notable. Uucp 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to play ball and elaborate on this, but is seems that explaining the non-notability of somebody who has never done anything of significance is akin to proving a negative. What do you want me to say? He's a writer whose byline appears in no magazines in ProQuest, or on any books in Amazon.com. He's an actor who has never been in any movie. He participated in a small town improv group for a couple of years. I feel as though I'm just re-typing the bio here -- he hasn't done anything noteworthy. Uucp 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a good choice for merging into Cabaret Dada, or, alternatively, just straight out deleted. The article also references Save Toby, which I note is also up for AfD (although it calls it a "book"). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think vanity and not notable are clear and concise in themselves (did you see the article?). The Deviant 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, I, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, and Uucp, who will soon be experienced with the ways of AfD to the point where he nominates instead of votes, may know enough to interpret "vanity". Not everyone who comes across an AfD subpage will; some of them will be the author or subject of an article, and might take exception. Also, "non-notable" these days means nothing more than "I want the article deleted"; nearly everything that comes up before AfD, pass or fail, is "non-notable". An explanation is far better than a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All good. :) The Deviant 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, I, presumably experienced with the ways of AfD, and Uucp, who will soon be experienced with the ways of AfD to the point where he nominates instead of votes, may know enough to interpret "vanity". Not everyone who comes across an AfD subpage will; some of them will be the author or subject of an article, and might take exception. Also, "non-notable" these days means nothing more than "I want the article deleted"; nearly everything that comes up before AfD, pass or fail, is "non-notable". An explanation is far better than a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no verification for claims of subject's significance. Ziggurat 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vanity. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.