Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Mark Desvaux


 * 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 was: delete. BD2412 T 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Desvaux
Poorly sourced quotes, similar promo spam as at en.wikipedia. Please see also w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Desvaux. — -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 23:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nom. -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I would have let the prod process work, allowing for speedy deletion after 7 days. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes, in this instance I felt it prudent that more discussion could only serve to help things with this incident, and certainly talking more about this issue can only be helpful and not harmful in nature. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What issue? Is the proposal to delete this article contested? ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently the idea of having more discussion about this was contested in the mind of at least one admin. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to discuss whether to have a discussion about whether to have a discussion. I was asking for clarification of what the issue is that you feel needs to be discussed. If there isn't one then I am done here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has the taste and texture of spam. BD2412 T 20:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Collingwood's original prod rationale: "No adequately sourced quotes; dubious notability", and per my subsequent prod-2 rationale: "Unremarkable bloggery. See quotability." ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)