Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandenn Bremmer (copyvio)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

Comment: For future re-nominations, please do not just plug them into an existing archived debate. Please create a new VfD discussion page (perhaps with the words "2nd nomination" at the end) and link to the old discussions. Do not transclude them. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenn Bremmer

This old VfD has been resuscitated; I explain why at the foot (if you see a red frame, then below that red frame). Add new votes or comments there. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:38, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 - copyvio - SimonP 14:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

A talented 14-year-old who appears to have committed suicide. Well, yes, but Wikipedia isn't a local newspaper. Non-encyclopedic. -- Hoary 12:08, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC) .............. PS: Note the comment below (22:56, 24 Mar 2005) by Chris, identifying the article as a copyvio. -- Hoary 02:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Keep. It's interesting. Robinoke 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If all that's written is true it's remarkeble enough to keep. Being young or locally famous doesn't always exclude someone from Wikipedia. Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This was covered by several news outlets including the Washington Post [1], and is quite an interesting story. Keep. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
International news reports - Guardian (UK), New Kerala (India), The Scotsman (obvious...). Borderline notable prior to death for being a musical prodigy it would appear. Not sure I personally agree with the newspaper's view that this is that newsworthy, but I do occasionally have the ability to concede I may be in a minority, and I suspect this is one of those cases. Weak keep. Average Earthman 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence of prodigy presented. A 15-year old kid who died last week isn't notable because it makes the local newspaper. Has a CD which was quasi-self-released. I say "quasi", since it was released by his mother, in the same business in which she self-publishes her books (they are listed on Amazon with sales rank around the 2 million mark). Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, for being the non-notable child prodigy of a non-notable authoress. "Interesting" is not a valid inclusion criterion. Chris 16:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I was unaware of this ~~bogus~~ novel policy that articles are required to pass inclusion criteria. Perhaps you wanted Nupedia - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Just because something fails deletion criteria, doesn't mean it should automatically be kept. Remember that many good articles that may have met deletion criteria have been kept, and are now useful. Why shouldn't it work both ways? Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I had to read the above twice to be sure you're actually saying what you're saying. If an article does not meet the criteria for deletion, of course it should be kept. m:Wiki is not paper -- Curps 03:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - This boils down to how one interprets the policy, and whether one should adhere to the letter or the spirit thereof. One can make a valid point for 'non-notability' being a valid reason for deletion, based on policy and precedent. One can also make a valid point for the opposite. That's what law courts are for, but thankfully Wikipedia isn't one. Radiant _* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Aren't encyclopedias supposed to "interesting?" Robinoke 17:17, 19 Mar 2005
  - Not first and foremost, no. Chris 18:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Not first and foremost, but ultimately so. I believe that interesting articles should be kept and I can't see any good reason for its deletion. Robinoke 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - So, "non-notable per music project, vanity, too common, no potential to become encyclopaedic" aren't reasons for deletion. Then I must be seeing things. Chris 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - "Interesting" is POV. "Non-notable per music project" is NPOV. Radiant _* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
        Is there such a thing as a debate without POV? Robinoke 20:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, made the news - David Gerard 17:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as memorial vanity (of the mother for her child). Radiant _* 19:05, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Average Earthman. Kappa 19:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Child prodigies generally aren't encyclopedia material. Teenagers who commit suicide aren't notable either, although it is sad. Teenage suicides that get in the local news are only slightly more notable than those that don't. Teenage suicides aren't even notable if their mothers say it was so they could donate their organs. And it isn't notable even when all of this is combined in one case. Also, I don't see what is interesting about it. --BM 00:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability, possible family vanity. Megan1967 02:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do you seriously think that 4 days after their son's death they logged on to Wikipedia to write a stub about him!?! ed g2s • talk 11:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Given the things I've seen in my few months here, I wouldn't put it past them. And since when does an article have to be written by the subject or its owner/family/creator to be vanity? We get third-party vanity articles here all the time. Chris 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - The Washington Post and New York Times also print vanity articles all the time, I suppose. This made the news... do you not watch the news or read newspapers? -- Curps 02:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - This is not Wikinews. Not everything that makes the news should be in Wikipedia. Heck, the average town drunk makes the news occasionally. Radiant _* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going with delete here or maybe tranwiki to wikimemorial, as he really doesn't seem notable. I think BM has it right. Yeah, he got a mention in the Post and USA Today, but the entire contents of the Post article was "• OMAHA -- Brandenn E. Bremmer, a musical prodigy who completed high school at age 10, apparently killed himself at 14, authorities said. Brandenn, who had studied piano improvisation at Colorado State University at Fort Collins, Colo., was found dead Tuesday at his home with a gunshot wound to the head, sheriff's officials said." Is everything ever mentioned in one of the nations top 10 newspapers automatically encyclopedic? The Post printed the weather in San Diego today as well, should there be an article on that? They must print millions of sentences a year, and 2 have been devoted to this kid. If you look at that link supplied by verdana above you'll see several other Post articles primarily of regional interest are printed along with this one. Are all such things going to be wikipedia articles? Wouldn't it have been great if wikipedia 500,000th article turned out to be "• FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Three teenagers kidnapped a 15-year-old and ordered his father to drop off a $50 ransom at a Taco Bell, authorities said. The father called police instead, and the teenagers were arrested." -R. fiend 03:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This New York Times story is quite a bit longer.
Delete. Just because somebody made a newspaper doesn't make them worth having an encyclopedia article about them. If so, there are about 10 obituaries a day in the local paper I can write articles about. And I'm not talking about the paid ones. Rick K 05:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, concur with BM. DaveTheRed 05:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Subject would not have been considered notable prior to his death. (See the guidelines for musicians or the guidelines for inclusion of general biographies.) Would WikiNews accept this, though? If so, transwiki. Rossami (talk) 06:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You are right that the subject would not have been considered notable enough for inclusion prior to his death, but you are wrong in thinking that this matters. Some people become notable in death, such as Nicole Brown Simpson or Laci Peterson, and they become notable simply because the media makes them notable rather than because of any personal accomplishment (thus, the fact that this person happened to be a musician is merely incidental here). -- Curps 03:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
  - Yes, some people beecome notable in death. This isn't one of them. This kid died, and a whole bunch of newspapers had a slow news day and ran a couple of paragraphs (dead tree, not online). This is not the same as being the focus of the highest-profile murder trial or most-discussed missing persons case in history. Chris 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - You're missing the point. The point being made was simply that notability prior to death is not relevant, and two much more well-known examples were provided to illustrate this point. -- Curps 22:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Sorry to sound callous but this particular person was just another suicide. He did not become notable in death. Yes, he got some media coverage on a slow news day. Coverage in the media is an excellent indicator that the article should exist in WikiNews (now that we have that option). I am becoming less and less convinced that it is a reliable indicator that the article belongs in Wikipedia. No change of vote. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I searched for it and was impressed the info was there. - iknowthat ...comment added to the top at 19:51, 2005 Mar 20 by User:Iknowthat, whose only other contributions have been minor edits to a single article. (Moved into place by Hoary.)
Keep, this story appeared in newspapers internationally. Meets minimum threshold of notability. -- Curps 22:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) Also in this New York Times story. -- Curps 01:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Internationally? Then how come our newspapers here haven't listed it? Radiant _* 12:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Please identify which part of the minimum threshold in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines this article meets. Chris 02:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What on Earth does Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines have to do with it? His death was widely reported in international newspapers and TV, ipso facto he's notable. The fact that he happened to be a music prodigy rather than a chess or math prodigy (or something else entirely) is merely incidental. -- Curps 02:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Widely reported" is a bit of a stretch. I think a two sentence blurb in a few papers is hardly "wide". Every minor thing mentioned somehow in the news on a single day is encyclopedic material? Pick up any paper on any day and you'll see hundreds of things given this kind of coverage. Are they covered in encyclopedias? Are they recorded for posterity? Shall I write an article on that dog that was reunited with it's family after 2 years that I saw on the news several times yesterday? Or what about that day about 2 years ago when CNN gave substantial live coverage about a small airplane that was making an emergency landing without a front landing gear? I remember it, so it must be notable, I guess. And your comment "This made the news... do you not watch the news or read newspapers?" strikes me as a bit condescending. This was not the Space Shuttle expolding, this was 2 sentences buried in the Washington Post that I'm sure 99.99999% of the world's population took no note of. Yes, many of us watch the news and read newspapers, but believe it or not we still somehow missed this breaking story. -R. fiend 05:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't condescending, it was in response to someone who seemed to be under the impression this was some kind of family-written vanity page, even though it had already been pointed out that this did genuinely make the news (and not just the local papers, but internationally). By the way, The New York Times gave it 22 paragraphs (some of only one sentence, of course), and Google News counts at least 231 newspapers internationally that ran the wire story or wrote their own [2] in the UK, India, etc. This is not a vanity page, nor a memorial, nor a music-related article to be judged on musician notability criteria, nor a topic of purely local interest, nor a "man bites dog" trivia filler story. Wiki is not paper. -- Curps 07:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, if it's widely reported in the international media, it's notable? OK, I'll go create Weather in London, 21 March 2005, since that's widely reported in the international media. It'll be in every national paper in most of the world's major economies, as well as on BBC News, CNN, Fox News (if you consider that to be news), etc, so it must be notable. Chris 03:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Earlier you said something to the effect of "sometimes articles that I think ought to be deleted get kept, so let's even things out by deleting some articles even if they don't meet deletion criteria". Were you serious? -- Curps 03:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was serious in my comment, but I must have missed the part in my argument where I said what you're implying I said. My argument is that just because something doesn't meet the explicitly-listed deletion criteria, doesn't mean it should be automatically kept - remember that someone in the know can write a full-length article on things which shouldn't be here (note that the list on WP:DP is not exhaustive). It should be noted that this article does meet deletion criteria, specifically "No potential to become encyclopedic" and "Vanity page" (read it again - it very blatantly is one, compare this to the example given). It's also worth noting that your argument re: the music guidelines is also flawed. "I mean, that Bono guy is a nobody, he's never in the news - the fact that he's the lead singer of the biggest rock band in the world should be neither here nor there." One of the major points made in the article is that he was a musical prodigy, thus it should be also judged under the music notability guidelines. You're also flawed in your idea of how many news companies "ran" this story. Just because it appears on their Web site, doesn't mean it was printed in the paper. In fact, most of those on Google News probably didn't give the story column inches in their dead-tree editions, or actual coverage on TV. Chris 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A vanity page is a page about a topic or person known to only a small group of people in a local area, usually written for the purpose of boosting the fame or recognition of that person or topic, and usually written by someone directly involved with or acquainted with the topic or person.
Right, which is exactly what I think this article is - attempting to boost recognition for someone hasn't otherwise garnered it.

A topic that made the news internationally is, virtually by definition, not a vanity topic.
404 Logic not found.

Your original post mischaracterized this as something that "[made] the local newspaper", and although you have repeatedly been informed otherwise and provided references, you now treat us to your unfounded speculation about how this story "probably" wasn't actually printed anywhere... I can personally attest that it did appear both in print and on television news in a non-local area.
So it was a slow news day. Ultimately, newspapers have a given number of pages to fill, and TV has the same problem - if there's not enough real news to fill the paper, then they have to turn to things like this. See it?

One of the things people use encyclopediasfor is to look up background information about news stories they recall, and since Wikipedia is not paper this meets a minimum threshold for being encyclopedic. And once again, the music guidelines you cite are completely and absolutely irrelevant... by your criteria Warning! Godwin's law alert! Adolf Hitler should be deleted because he wasn't a notable artist.
No, Hitler should be kept as a notable world leader, since that's the one thing he's best known for. According to both the article, and the Google results for his name, the one thing this guy was most associated with before his death was as a musical prodigy. As such, judging under the music guidelines is the Right Thing. Again, you seem to be caught up in this notion that everything that makes the news belongs in Wikipedia. Excuse me for noticing that the guy that egged John Prescott (and that made the news big time) doesn't have an article, and neither does whoever it was that harassed Tony Blair outside that hopsital 4 years ago (we had to put up with that for a whole week). Now, Christine Keeler has an article. She made the news, but her incident was a national scandal.

I readily agree that if someone had added this kid's bio one day before his suicide, it would have been deleted as a vanity page of a non-notable musician. But the international news story of his death, which received considerably more coverage than you were aware of or willing to admit, became a sufficiently minimally notable internationally news story (deservedly or not) that a background article on this news story meets the minimum threshold for being encyclopedic in a non-paper encyclopedia without size limitations.
How about you shut up with the pointless conjecture and actually come up with a convincing argument for keeping this? The fact that it's made the news does not change the fact that the whole of this story is "There's this kid, really good at music, studying at college at 14, and he kills himself." That is not the makings of someone who deserves an encyclopaedia article.

I personally don't really care all that much about this kid or his sad life and death, but I dislike seeing mischaracterizations of this topic and misapplication of irrelevant criteria. It's not your vote to delete, but rather the basis on which you seem to be making it, which is troubling. -- Curps 22:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I've demonstrated, the basis for my delete vote is perfectly sound. It is your vote which seems to be defying all logic. Chris 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable despite being in newspapers. --Angr 10:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment If this kid really is notable, why don't we even have a date of birth? Chris 16:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oooooo. Don't say that. Someone will dig it up somewhere, add it to the article, and say "look, now it even meets Chris's standards!" missing the point utterly. -R. fiend 05:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Date of birth and death is only the start, and even the stubbiest of biostubs should have both. That alone doesn't make it a keeper though ;-) Chris 20:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete a death being reported in the news isn't really anything unusual. Sad story, but should be deleted as a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gently. Memorial. A very sad case to be sure, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Jonathunder 04:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Delete. Tragic, yes, but not encyclopedic. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Sort of an interesting dilemma. People who commit suicide are not inherently notable, but child geniuses who commit suicide so that their organs might go to save others probably are... and indeed, the news reports suggest that his organs went to several needy people. But I have to wonder if the story is all there - maybe his death was triggered not by altruism, but merely by the enormous pressures to which prodigies are subjected; maybe his mother's belief that his suicide was prompted by such a selfless motive is her own projection onto him of her values. Either way, very sad, but the prodigy-suicide combined with the possibility of a notably unusual motive tips the balance for me. -- 8^D ^gab 11:39, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
- I get the feeling that the whole organ donation thing is purely anecdotal. Worse still, given the publication dates of some of the newspaper articles, some might have been running with it based on the fact that "Oh, he's in Wikipedia, he must be important". Worse still (without actually checking the details on this one) is the possibility that the stuff on the organ donation may have come from here, resulting in circular references. Chris 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Below the bar of notability. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, this is new. Previously, I'd just browsed the newspaper article in making the decision, but on closer inspection, the "bulk" of the article (I use the word "bulk" liberally in referring to a 3-sentence article) is lifted straight from the external link, with some report-style language like "officals said" removed. Marked as copyvio for now. Chris 22:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DELETE This story is in the nbewpapers not credible. Since this seams to be the source, it is not worth to be a Wiky ...at 23:15, 2005 Mar 24, this was added (out of the correct sequence) by User:81.240.122.249.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This old VfD has been resuscitated; I explain why at the foot (if you see a blue frame, then below that blue frame). Add any new comments (or votes) there. Thank you. -- Hoary 02:52, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I have resuscitated this VfD because an article on the same subject has been provided afresh. (On 3 May, originally telling us that there was a side of him that hit the highest spectrums of natural intelligence.) As you'll see, although the VfD process at first may appear to have resulted in a decision to delete, what actually happened was that after some rather lively debate the article was found to be a copyvio, listed as a copyvio, not revised, and deleted as a copyvio. There was no decision about the WP-worthiness of Brandenn Bremmer.

Bremmer still strikes me as a more than averagely interesting teen who had a more than averagely interesting suicide. Good fodder for the "human interest" sections of "news" sources on a slow day, but very minor and ephemeral news. He was no Mozart and his suicide was, sadly, not particularly remarkable. This doesn't strike me as encyclopedic stuff, and my "delete" proposal of 19 March still stands. -- Hoary 02:38, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Delete -- Not notable before death. (Can't we just link to all that red alarming stuff?)- Longhair | Talk 02:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are 14 year olds in Nebraska allowed by law to donate their organs or was it the consent of his parents upon medical request? I always found that last sentence in the article odd. Megan1967 03:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A philosopher, let alone a psychologist or sociologist, considering the problem of suicide two hundred years from now could - no, would - find this case and the subsequent interest in and discussion about it in the public square, clearly and uniquely noteworthy. Absolute keep. Samaritan 04:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that is an appropriate argument for keeping. A psychologist or sociologist 200 years from now would need info on a whole range of suicides, not just 'famous' ones, and anyone relying on Wikpedia articles for their information for such a study would deserve to be refused publication. Average Earthman 10:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aww, good point. But in so far as Wikipedia articles would cite sources, as they should, that would be appropriate use. (And hey, within the next 200 years, I'm sure we'll start to see professionally or semiprofessionally fact-checked, controlled forks of Wikipedia; we're writing drafts for those now, too.) Samaritan 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...okay, but I do accept the emerging consensus that an article on the guy is too granular. I'm going to see what I can do to merge/expand on what is relevant about the case, in appropriate context, on teenage suicide and possibly child prodigy. Samaritan 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nonnotable. Rick K 04:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Still nonnotable. --Angr/_comhrá 06:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be cleaned up and what not though. Klonimus 08:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not encyclopedic. Martg76 09:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 10:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a death being reported in the news isn't really anything unusual. Sad story, but should be deleted as a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Interesting maybe, but not encyclopedic. —Xezbeth 11:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons stated in the previous VfD. -R. fiend 20:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolut delete. Not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 22:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. K1Bond007 00:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not improved since the last time, not to mention a technical speedy as a recreation. Chris talk back 03:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised. I thought the article had previously been deleted as a copyvio. I can't see anything wrong in creating a copyright-non-violating article to replace a zapped copyvio. No, to me it seems a plain old VfD issue, with the twist that the same process had previously been started but aborted. (A bit of a waste of everybody's time, of course.) -- Hoary 06:39, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  - Turns out that the replaced article was not different enough to escape being a recreation, thus also still a copyvio. Even though the original source article seems to be AWOL. Chris talk back 10:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were right, I wuz wrong. But in view of the energy that's already gone into copyvio-irrelevant voting, I recommend that this VfD isn't cut short, so we get a clear yes or no on the WP-worthiness of Brandenn Bremmer. -- Hoary 10:57, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Comment. Apparently the article was deleted again for copyvio? Anyway, there should be an article. If a new article is created, all the old votes are irrelevant (since most people vote based on the quality of the article). The topic is a good one, verifiable and very notable. Mirror Vax 13:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you're not going to waste everybody's time by writing a new article here so we can have a third VfD on it. All the above delete votes were based on inherent notability issues, not article quality. I'd hate to see this turn into one of those cases where someone tries to "improve" an article on a nobody by turning it into their entire life story, no detail ignored, as if mentioning someone's hobbies, family, and other mundane details is somehow going to make a subject encyclopedic. Let this one die. -R. fiend 15:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you assume that a good article can't be written? Think positive. Mirror Vax 23:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Grue 17:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At 00:44, 2005 May 7, Mirror Vax deleted the entire content of the VfD project page, in conjunction with his or her creation of a new page about Brandenn Bremmer. Putting aside the question of the legitimacy of deleting a VfD page, I see much of the discussion above as not specific to this or that previous article about Bremmer, but rather about the noteworthiness of Bremmer. This made the resuscitation of the content of this page particularly important, but I'd have resuscitated it anyway, as VfD pages are "preserved as an [sic] historic record" -- Hoary 03:10, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Do you have any concerns about deleting an article with no explaination? I have never seen the original article. There seemed to some kind of voting taking place about an article that didn't exist - very odd. I think it may be very confusing to leave the debris of an aborted discussion about an article that has already been deleted here, especially when User:Hoary has tagged a new article of the same title as VfD. The casual reader may be misled. Mirror Vax 04:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already raised this point, and I have already answered it, in the talk page. Interested readers can see that. Please do not remove the VfD notice from the article a second time; removing a VfD notice (however misguided you happen to think it may be) constitutes vandalism. -- Hoary 04:45, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
  - I gave a cogent reason for the removal, so it is improper to label it "vandalism". Your VfD was entered on May 7, yet it points to a May 5 discussion about an article that was deleted. You need to create a new VfD entry dated May 7. My removal of the VfD notice was entirely proper. Mirror Vax 04:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - And articles that are deleted stay deleted unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. The consensus is respected - if we held a new VfD every time someone recreated a deleted page, we'd gridlock Wikipedia in 10 seconds flat. --FCYTravis 07:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If articles were deleted based on their subject and not due to transitory problems, then there would be no need to recreate deleted pages. But the vfd process is horribly broken, and thus recreations are sometimes necessary. If you want to stop recreations, then stop the deletion of articles based on transitory problems. - Pioneer-12 13:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.