Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nederland 1

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 speedy delete --SPUI (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nederland 1[edit]

This looks like some bizarre piece of slander. I suspected copyright infringement at first, but it seems this poor contributor is just out to get his ex-wife's new husband. Since I can't figure out what significance this title has, I'm going to say delete. Deco 09:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an encyclopedic article, not related to title. Thue | talk 09:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax, non-encyclopedic, poorly named, probaby a (fake) chain email. Master Thief Garrett 09:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what this is supposed to be but I'm fairly confident it contains no useful material. Probable attempt at a joke by an anon, or possibly a coded message from the advance party of a Martian invasion. Either way, delete. Andrewa 10:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- *gasp* What, and anger our future overlords? Never! :) Master Thief Garrett 12:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, joke or slander, no potential to become encyclopedic. Sietse 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy! Allegations someone is a "psychopath", a violent criminal, has threatened murder, etc. apparently in the context of a child custody case. It also includes, "I request the below information be totally secret till [target's name] is incapacitated because of fear of being harassed by him," so at least speedy because isn't licensed under GFDL. :p Samaritan 13:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, delete. How did the meme attack pages were speediable start? Did they used to be? (If anyone knows, User talk:Samaritan? *curious; sorry*) Samaritan 00:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And I see it has been speedied. But while these may both be good reasons for speedy delete, neither is mentioned in our current policies and procedures AFAIK. They aren't even listed as proposed. Have I missed something? Or, do they need an update? Andrewa 20:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should raise this matter on the Talk page, citing this mess as evidence, and then it can be written up in a useful manner and added in. Certainly we need a "psychopathic ramblings" clause. Master Thief Garrett 00:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have undeleted this because it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. In particular, no statement made in the body of the article can change the license that they have submitted the text under. It wouldn't hurt to propose amending the speedy delete policy to include articles solely created as threats though. Deco 00:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I redeleted it because it's slander and could be legally hinky. I love how the guy says we need to keep it secret by posting it to an encyclopedia with everybody's name involved. RickK 05:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    - And *I* think you two need to go off and discuss this on the Speedy talk page rather than contradicting each other's actions. The sooner we get a clause made for this, the better. Master Thief Garrett 05:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I'm fascinated. Those proposing this for speedy deletion seem to agree with me that it's not a valid candidate under the current policy. What is the policy for, if any admin is free to disregard it? Why bother to update it, or even discuss updating it, if it's not going to be followed anyway? Andrewa 13:25, 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.