Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Francesca Easthope

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 speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax that shouldn't be on Wikipedia one second longer. FCYTravis 19:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Francesca Easthope

Speedied but doesn't fit any CSD. No vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not for you to conclude against a unanimous vote in VfU Tony, like it or not. That vote upholds the original speedy, it's one of the things that VfU is for. -Splash 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And apart from that, I get zero Google hits (alright, 1, but its a mirror), so she is non-notable, the article is non-verifiable and "she's concentrating on her friends at the moment". Please. WP:NOT a bureaucracy.-Splash 23:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Total crap. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy re-delete as blatent vanity. Original speedy should have been allowed to stand. --Carnildo 23:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Couldn't. There is no CSD for vanity where notability is asserted. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." Wikipedia:Five pillars. CSD is not an algorithm, it's a guideline to aid in consistent judgement. VfU is the correction mechanism. One sysop's interpretation of the letter of the law should not override group consensus judgements. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Couldn't, or wouldn't? There's a difference. -R. fiend 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Good luck to her in the future but non-notable for now. Sabine's Sunbird 23:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, unverifiable bio. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 01:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been speedied and kept deleted. android79 01:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as nonsesne, you only have to look at the list of appearances which span several continents and a few decades of television to see that this 7 year old isn't real.--nixie 02:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 03:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again. This is not TonySidawaypedia. Zoe 04:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed it is not, nor anyone else's private playpen. This is why, there being no valid CSD for this class of article, it was resurrected and listed on VfD. I think it's a hoax, and so do you, but we could both be wrong. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Not a speedy candidate, admins should not break the rules and then rely on other admins to back them up at VFU. Kappa 06:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent vanity nonsense --Cje 07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check the other contributions by 86.129.55.188. Includes a claim that Francesca has been the drummer for Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think not. --Cje 07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, valid speedy per VFU consensus, and censure Tony for WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 08:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Kappa says so... Unverifiable at any rate, but "hoax" is in fact not a speedy criterion, because it is difficult to make a speedy verification. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not verifiable and above evidence makes it being a hoax very likely. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dear God, dissension in the inclusionist ranks. Proto t c 09:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete a few moments research shows this is patent nonsense. --TimPope 17:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- DS1953 18:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this is a hoax. Yes, admins should speedy things that are this blatantly bad. Seems like there's too much fighting between editors here and not enough common seense. Friday (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, and it seems to me that Tony Sidaway confused matters on this greatly by intervening before the VfU had reached a consensus. How do you expect non-admins to participate meaningfully in the process if the place where consensus forms moves around arbitrarily and capriciously? Nandesuka 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with this crap. Gamaliel 01:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's not a hoax, someone can always re-create the article with verifiable references. People who create articles should be held to some minimal standard of responsibility. Articles are not humans, deletion is not capital punishment, and the standard is not "true unless proven false beyond reasonable doubt." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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.