Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Levy (actor)
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 keep. – Robert 00:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Vanity page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep based on imdb credits. Anons and bots should not be making nominations. --Rob 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a case for a speedy keep, both anons and bots should be making nominations, and people who can't be bothered to read the Guide to deletion should not be commenting on afds. —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps people shouldn't unilaterally change the procedure for making a nomination, without first gaining consensus, and updating the written procedures. Also, don't ever tell registered user's they're not welcome here. Bots have no role in the decision to make a nomination. That should be obvious. Anons are prohibited from making pages, and bots should not bypass that restriction on their behalf. This nomination is invalid. A non-bot registered user wishing to make one is welcome to. --Rob 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Crypticbot has been cleaning up malformed AfD nominations for a while now, and I don't really see the problem with that. This is certainly not the place for an in-depth discussion of the matter. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps people shouldn't unilaterally change the procedure for making a nomination, without first gaining consensus, and updating the written procedures. Also, don't ever tell registered user's they're not welcome here. Bots have no role in the decision to make a nomination. That should be obvious. Anons are prohibited from making pages, and bots should not bypass that restriction on their behalf. This nomination is invalid. A non-bot registered user wishing to make one is welcome to. --Rob 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a case for a speedy keep, both anons and bots should be making nominations, and people who can't be bothered to read the Guide to deletion should not be commenting on afds. —Cryptic (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The guide to deletion says that anonymous users are permitted to nominate pages, although they cannot finish the process. I don't think this is a good idea, and I don't understand how it is intended to work, but it is OK according to the guide. In this case, though, the article should stay as per Rob. N Shar 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Although sections of the Guide are written by Cryptic and are somewhat controversial, the idea that anonymous users can nominate pages seems reasonable and would not have remained in the GtD if it was not accepted by the community. N Shar 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I don't really care for the current standard of "any IMDB entry will suffice" but that appears to be the current consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I say we give it 30 days to add some actual content, or delete. Agree with ESkog, IMDB != automatic notability. -Will 01:09, 16 January 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.