Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew holloway
Andrew holloway 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 DELETE.
vanity page. Maximus Rex 01:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Easily the worst ever. Again I have to ask why people just don't read the part about not writing about themselves? He at least read the part about how to wiki...so he makes one for his brother! Speedy if possible. I am SO tired of seeing crap like this linger for five days. - Lucky 6.9 01:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Lucky, it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. Kenwarren 01:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- But how do we separate actual vanity articles from articles on people that the deleter hasn't heard of? Secretlondon 05:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think the usual method is the "Google test". Kenwarren 14:15, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Google doesn't cover everything. Secretlondon 14:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- True, but in this case the only Google hit for this particular Andrew Holloway is his personal web site at IIT. And he's a college student; they usually aren't what I would call encyclopedic. - Kenwarren 16:05, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The Google test is useful but overused IMO. This article qualifies for delete because it doesn't meet the standards of even a basic stub, which is to say what is being described and why it deserves an article. The Google test could overturn this if he turned out to have a lot of relevant hits, but it's not necessary to support deletion. Google can also be used to help verify the information, and IMO that's a far more important use of Google. Vote below. Andrewa 03:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- True, but in this case the only Google hit for this particular Andrew Holloway is his personal web site at IIT. And he's a college student; they usually aren't what I would call encyclopedic. - Kenwarren 16:05, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Google doesn't cover everything. Secretlondon 14:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think the usual method is the "Google test". Kenwarren 14:15, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- But how do we separate actual vanity articles from articles on people that the deleter hasn't heard of? Secretlondon 05:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- "Left-handed and proud!" The time he wasted creating a second homepage on the Wikipedia could have been used to copyedit a more deserving article. Oh, well, live and learn. And delete . --Ardonik 02:06, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete in any case: This is not a newbie trying to make a user page? If not, slap it. If so, politely urge proper compliance, etc. Geogre 02:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke or vanity by anon. Andrewa 03:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - simple vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:27, 20 Jul 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.