Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Sheehan's problem
- 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 speedy delete as per WP:CSD A6. Hall Monitor 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant POV fork/essay. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a BigDaddy sock, there never was an article, thus speedy the damn thing--152.163.100.134 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah to heck, throw away the truth. Delete it as speedily as possible. Tonywalton | Talk 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't even be a need to debate this one.
- Delete. I marked it for speedy, but the tag was taken off, apparently. I'm still figuring this Wikipedia thing out: did I do something wrong? Are only admins supposed to add speedy delete tags? - Squibix 01:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all, anybody can add. But you justified the speedy under the criteria for "patent nonsense," which it was at the time you added the tag, only because someone had edited it to read "this was created by a BigDaddy sockpuppet." The initial entry, which I restored, doesn't fit the "patent nonsense" speedy criteria (it's understandable -- just horribly biased), or really any other that I could determine. So that means it goes here to AFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He spammed the thing into two or three other articles, it's trolling at best, vandalism at worst, 68.122.180.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--152.163.100.134 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. That makes sense, thanks. - Squibix 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all, anybody can add. But you justified the speedy under the criteria for "patent nonsense," which it was at the time you added the tag, only because someone had edited it to read "this was created by a BigDaddy sockpuppet." The initial entry, which I restored, doesn't fit the "patent nonsense" speedy criteria (it's understandable -- just horribly biased), or really any other that I could determine. So that means it goes here to AFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. But wait! Know that if you delete or vandalize this, you are throwing away the truth. Gasp! Devotchka 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. POV fork. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. Not a speedy though. --JJay 02:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. 23skidoo 03:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete characteristic of a big daddy sockpuppet an non notable-Dakota 03:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV and as vandalism. The threat is a pretty good indication that this person will not be contributing articles that are in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Jacqui ★ 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vandalism, blatant POV violations, ranting. Sounds like something from Rush Limbaugh.
- Delete. What I love is that BigDaddy is becoming a verb. lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unredeemably POV. --Clay Collier 07:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Do I really need to give a reason? —Brim 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely strong delete. This entire article is nothing but a personal insult at Cindy Sheehan. Wikipedia is not a forum for redneck conservative xenophobic warmongers. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable personal attack. Is that not a Speedy criterion? - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy or Delete Personal attack POV garbage. Stu 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just speedy delete this one. Marskell 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, what a horrible problem. Speedy Delete --Optichan 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete -- I looked all through the criteria and most of them are near misses, but A6 seems to fit: "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject." Maybe a little loose. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is no point in attempting to determine the what the creator's ulterior motives were here. The title and content of this article qualify it for speedy deletion as an attack page as it is. Hall Monitor 18:47, 28 October 2005 (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.