Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Clarence McCoy


 * 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: deleted. — Jeffq 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarence McCoy
Not notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (also Image:Mccoy.jpg)
 * Vote closed. Result: deleted (4 Deletes; 1 Keep; 1 illegal vote). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this is supposed to be a user page, it should be moved to the appropriate location (after which we should still delete the resulting redirect). If used on a user page, the image could stay; otherwise, it should go, too. (Question: Does Commons accept user photos for wiki project user pages?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it will be moved to user page, same for the pic. (Answer: Yes, and they allow wider choice as for licensing, though they don't accept Fair Use images. The recommended category is Commons:Category:Wikipedians).--Aphaia 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy has written several internet security manuals and is an established columnist. Peter Norvig (talk)  Peter Norvig 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: vote struck out by me for being forged by Wikipedophile. For evidence see ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Def keep. Wikipedophile 21:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: that vote (and forging the above vote) was the user's only contributions). I suspect sock-puppetry. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Forgery confirmed. I guess the original anon poster who posted from DoD Network Information Center is identical with the registered user who edited this article later, and also identical with Wikipedophile. And even only for his or her offenstive name, Wikipedophile deserves to be banned permentently in my opinion. Also flaud on voting gives a good reason to ban this user indefinitely.
 * Comment: I have blocked Wikipedophile indefinitely per patently offensive username and sockpuppetry, both within blocking policy. The former is particularly offensive coming from a representative of an respected institution whose honorable standards are proudly displayed on the website protected by this "Firewall Administrator". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As for notability I found two books under a same name, but "quotes" seem not notable or impressive. Notability isn't sufficient reason in my opinion - we don't want to consume every wording of Shakespeare, for example. Only significant ones would be gathered and offered to our readers. And "I vote for someone" doesn't reach this criteria. --Aphaia 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a relevant proposal on Talk:Abortion - investigation on their sockpuppecy. --Aphaia 07:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Sockpuppet limit has been breached. jni 16:22, 28 July 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.