Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal X (Correspondence)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal X (Correspondence)[edit]

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.

Votes[edit]

Agree[edit]

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Smoddy | Talk 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ld | talk 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Wikimol 00:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. MarkSweep 01:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Vamp:Willow 01:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Sketchee 01:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Rje 02:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Kevin 02:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Carnildo 02:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Sc147 03:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Antandrus 03:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Ливай | ☺ 03:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. DJ Clayworth 05:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. Ben Brockert 05:58, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 06:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  25. Korath (Talk) 06:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Slowking Man 07:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Golbez 07:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  28. iMeowbot~Mw 08:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Sortior 08:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Jeff Knaggs 09:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Skysmith 09:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. RadicalSubversiv E 09:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Dysprosia 11:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  34. David Johnson [T|C] 13:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Dori | Talk 14:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Tuf-Kat 14:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. Kelly Martin 18:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. Phils 18:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Peacenik 20:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. RickK 21:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  42. Thue | talk 21:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. hfool/Wazzup? 23:45, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). There aren't many of these anyway, are there?
  44. Anthony Liekens 00:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. Conti|✉ 00:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  46. Joshuapaquin 02:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  47. DCEdwards1966 03:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  48. ℘yrop (talk) 03:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Comics 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. gK ¿? 03:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  51. Seems to me this qualifies as an obvious test. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Ambi 05:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. jni 10:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. Ryan! | Talk 11:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  56. Gentgeen 11:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  57. Xezbeth 11:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  58. Bucephalus 12:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  59. Cyrius|✎
  60. Alphax (talk) 12:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  61. Tompagenet 13:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. This seems like a no-brainer. Gamaliel 13:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  63. It wasn't obvious to me what this meant, but examples on the talk page helped. older≠wiser 14:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  64. G Rutter 16:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Proteus (Talk) 17:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Jrdioko (Talk) 18:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  67. PedanticallySpeaking 19:15, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  68. I also think DJ Clayworth's suggested expansion (on the talk page) is good but that's not being voted on. Maybe in the future. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  69. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  70. Paul August ☎ 21:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  71. Lucky 6.9 22:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  72. Shane King 01:42, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  73. ping 08:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  74. Pavel Vozenilek 21:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. Infrogmation 21:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Not that I've seen many of them. Dbiv 21:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  77. Lee S. Svoboda 21:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Deathphoenix 00:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  79. Seems to make sense so long as the interpretation of "correspondence" is correctly done. --JuntungWu 03:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Wyss 04:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  81. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  82. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 06:44, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  83. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  84. Warofdreams 13:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  85. Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  86. Mrwojo 22:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  87. Yes--Plato 23:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  88. Cmprince 00:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  89. Yes...though in my perfect Wikiverse the admin would also leave a polite note to the anon (it's almost always an anon) on their talk page (or the article talk page, I suppose, but that's even less likely to be seen than their user talk page). Jwrosenzweig 00:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  90. kaal 02:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  91. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  92. Such articles are useless. Josh 11:58, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  93. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  94. ike9898 02:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  95. Mikkalai 03:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  96. Hoary 05:33, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
  97. Stormie 07:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
  98. Jiang 08:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  99. Thryduulf 11:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  100. Norg 15:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  101. AlexTiefling 18:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  102. Superm401 23:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert to a previous article if possible though.
  103. [[User:Premeditated ChaosUser:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Revert if possible. If not, yes, definite speedy. I hate those kinds of articles.
  104. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:15, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): In this case, a red link is much better than a blue link!
  105. foobaz·✐ 19:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  106. Probably the wording should be changed slightly to say that the article and all its older versions are only such attempts (since otherwise the article has to be reverted, not deleted). -- Paddu 21:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  107. RedWordSmith 22:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  108. --Spangineer ∞ 00:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  109. This may be covered elsewhere, but yes. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:19, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  110. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) um, I'm kinda doing this already anyway.
  111. 23skidoo 06:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  112. Indrian 07:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  113. Trevor Caira 07:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  114. Cool Hand Luke 09:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  115. Curps 09:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  116. Markaci 10:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  117. Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  118. Martg76 16:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  119. Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  120. R. fiend 21:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC). While this probably does fall under current "test" criteria, it's nice to have it spelled out in no uncertain terms.
  121. CryptoDerk 22:24, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  122. JoaoRicardo 04:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  123. Starblind 21:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  124. bbx 02:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  125. Rmhermen 16:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  126. — Asbestos | Talk 18:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  127. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 07:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Clear, well defined and a nobrainer. These are the scourge of Wiki.
  128. BesigedB (talk) 17:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Explicit clarification of existing policy.
  129. Eric119 05:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  130. Edeans 08:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  131. ABCD 02:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  132. John 11:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  133. AlexR 14:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  134. RedWolf 21:03, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  135. Rich Farmbrough 23:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree[edit]

  1. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. BSveen 00:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Could be cleaned up. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 18:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Be bold, kill the corresondence (or move to talk) and work on the article. Unless it's correspondence with a 'nobody' but that's already dealt under current VfD. [maestro] 12:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Guanaco 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Why?
  7. DAVODD 21:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Not neeeded - this would fall under the curent test area.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_X_(Correspondence)&oldid=1168078752"