This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful, humourous article about a unique human being! Why delete it, I mean shouldn't we encourage those who are willing to help society, no matter how small their deeds are? Please leave this article be, we need more wackiness, funniness on Wikipedia! Harris Johns

Total vanity. The article even says, "His work has...not greatly affected the world today as we know it...." I wish him great hardships in this world until he can write an article worth writing. I just can't stand vanity. --Blackcap | talk 06:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete UG.... claims he owns the internet LOL Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was speedied yesterday under the name Cameron Wilson. I think that we should block its re-creation too. --Apyule 07:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Del log shows Fvw deleted Cameron Wilson yesterday for "vanity, no assertion of notability". I think that was a SD; if so, CSD G4 does not apply to this page. Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  08:50:21, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Proto t c 10:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

((db-repost)) only applies if the deleted page was deleted as a result of a VfD, not SD. Unfortunately. Tonywalton  | Talk

So you're saying that if an article is deleted under A7, and it's recreated, it can't be speedy deleted without coming to AfD? Zoe 19:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Encephalon provided a useful conversation about this on his talk page below. Hope that clears things up; I found it helpful, anyway. --Blackcap | talk 19:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

WP:CSD G4 ("A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.") says: This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. If the previous deletion was a speedy (under any criterion, not just A7), it gets at least one more shot. Or even more - it could be speedied over and over again. However if it's reposted after a VfD voted "delete", then it merits a db-repost tag under CSD G4 and a deletedcontent tag on the deleted page to stop it being recreated.. What happens if, as seems likely with this article, it gets speedied due to an overwhelming consensus to speedy prior to the VfD period being up is worrying; does that count as a speedy (so db-repost doesn't apply) or a VfD delete (so db-repost does apply)? Tonywalton  | Talk 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tony, I don't think this is quite the right place to have a long discussion on CSD etc, and you're welcome to post on this Talk page, my Talk page or yours; I'll just comment here that I don't think this idea is correct: If the previous deletion was a speedy (under any criterion, not just A7), it gets at least one more shot. Or even more - it could be speedied over and over again. I'm posting some thoughts on this particular AfD's talk page.—Encephalon | ^ζ  21:19:00, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd typed my stuff in then got edit-conflicted before I had a chance to read yours. I don't think we're disagreeing on the general "Make the Cam Wilson articles go away" principle, though! Tonywalton  | Talk 23:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we most certainly agree on that. My only concern here is with the careful use of CSD; if improperly used it will simply prolong the deletion of vanity/inappropriate articles from WP, as these will likely be targetted for undelete/re-AfD campaigns, purely for "process" reasons. That's not necessarily a bad thing — it's important to protect the integrity of WP's policies such as they are — but I think all of us can agree it's better to be careful with the rules in the first place and avoid such situations.—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:35:09, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

• So we agree that this could be given nn-bio (A7) a second time, but not deleted as reproduced (G4)?
  brenneman^(t)(c) 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aaron. No, we all agree that inappropriate articles (such as vanity articles) should be deleted in accordance with WP policies. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that it can be done in this case under CSD, while some editors (all of whom I have great respect for) do. Will comment overleaf on the Talk page.—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:58:31, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

• Merge Seems like an important person. He represents a new generation. Lapinmies 09:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a few problems with your vote, esp. How is he important? and Which generation does he represent? Can you please clear this up. --Apyule 16:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? --Blackcap | talk 17:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki since he seems to be under the impression that he belongs in a dictionary. Failing that, Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity DV8 2XL 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Cam should go out and find some friends. Ground Zero | t 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He worries me: Cameron has often talked about how he was affected in his childhood by two events, the death of his maltese - shitzyu dog, named Toby, and the loss of his friend Nicholas Meyer in car crash. In that order. Tonywalton  | Talk

• Keep: He's a sad little ***************** isn't he. perhaps if we left his feeble article alone for a while, he'd get bored and go away. At which point it could be quietly deleted once and for all. 212.101.64.4 15:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should we do that when we can delete it now? --Blackcap | talk 17:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • because if you delete it now, he'll just create it again, and get a kick out of how he's pissing everybody off. if you ignore it, perhaps he'll get bored and go away sooner. 212.101.64.4 07:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Admits lack of notability. 65.5.74.2 16:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:55, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

As per comments below about speedy delete being inappropriate, I change my vote to Quickly Delete. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:11, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

• Comment I've put up the ((nn-bio)) template as there are so many speedy delete votes. --Blackcap | talk 19:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have removed the SD tag, Blackcap. I appreciate your desire to help clear the AfD candidates, but this article cannot be speedied, as Tonywalton and I mention above. For a short discussion, see this. Cheers—Encephalon | ^ζ  19:21:44, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Comment Got it. Sorry about that, I wasn't paying enough attention. --Blackcap | talk 19:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, not at all. Best—Encephalon | ^ζ  19:26:56, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
  • Well, it could be speedied again as sad vanity cruft, but I'd like it to merit CSD I4, as I said to Zoë above Tonywalton  | Talk 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. Having now read that link of Encephalon's I'm still not convinced this couldn't be speedied 5000 times as vanity; the fact it was vanity 4999 times previously doesn't change the 5000th. However I don't think Encephalon would disagree that G4 would stop it being recreated. Ever. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as soon as possible. Hall Monitor 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. And protect against recreation, and warn the author. -Splash 01:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. something is seriously amiss if, as asserted above, this article cannot be speedied. Dottore So 01:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not because it can could be. It still could qualify under "vanity", just not under "repost". - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion policies are all well and good, but let's make sure that we still use common sense here. --Apyule 02:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC) I agree.—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:35:09, 2005-09-02 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been told at my office: If you have a policy, you don't need common sense. The scary part was that she was dead serious when she said it. — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:25, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

• • Lol. I'm going to steal that quote! :)—Encephalon | ^ζ  12:42:15, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
• Comment since this article claims its notable it is not speedable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So all of those articles I delete which say "xxx is the greatest lover the world has ever known" can't be speedied? Nonsense. Zoe 18:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, Zoe, but it can't be speedied under WP:CSD A7, your example would have to be speedied under A1. Since it asserts its own notability, it can't go under A7. --Blackcap | talk 21:10, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've thought about this a bit more, and figured that it could also be speedied as vandalism. --Blackcap | talk 21:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Please use Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Double_jeapordy_for_speedies for general discussion of repeat speedy implications. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cameron Wilson was deleted so doesn't it make sense that this should be deleted? -x42bn6 Talk 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, obvious vanity. The existence of a "Why Cam Wilson is notable" section is a sure sign of misunderstanding the notability criteria. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: his website is shoddy to the extreme. It consists of "Hello. I own the Internet", a picture that can't be found, and three dead links. That's all. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whenever this happens, it will not be a moment too soon. -Splash 14:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Nandesuka 22:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop flaming him just cause he's submitted an original, wacky, zany piece of work! We need more humour in this world. Please?
• 'No Delete' I think Cam Wilson's funny, leave his article be! Janis
• [[I believe this is a beautiful, humourous article about a unique person. They may not have changed the face of the world, but as a user enyclopedia, should we not encourage celebration of diversity personified in this wacky but obviously passioniate person? Do not delete!]]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.