Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Mark Fancey


 * 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. — Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Fancey
Vanity page for a non-notable person. &mdash;LrdChaos 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (5 deletes from regular editors; 1 keep from creator whose only edits involve this article; discounted 5 deletes from single-edit users). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. &mdash;LrdChaos 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm notable because I have a popular website!--Underdog 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. --Underdog 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Olhado 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Softmachine 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impact12pt 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 67.188.22.41 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article that violates general autobiographical guidelines as well. (It could still be moved to a user page, of course.) Based on the timing of the creation of the above usernames, including Underdog, this seems like a clear case of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, with article creator (very likely Underdog/Mike Fancey himself) instigating them all. Note that "Underdog" was created at 18:21 UTC, during an 8-minute gap in article edits, after which edits were made by Underdog and no more by this IP. Furthermore, all the other usernames are currently single-purpose accounts, apparently created solely to support this article. Same for . ('s only edit to date has been to change the anon vote to his/her own, which LrdChaos reverted, as we have no way of knowing whether this is a new user changing their anon vote, or vandalism. But either way, it's merely more isolated support for a single article by new editors, heedless of policy.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heavensblade23 04:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 121a0012 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I must resist the urge to change my commentary above, because I just realized that what I said makes little sense. I was making a case that the single-purpose accounts that all registered within minutes of each other did so to support this article, but I misread the actual votes. They say "Delete", not "Don't Delete", which is what I'd obviously thought I'd read. In other words, we seem to have an attempt to ballot-stuff to get rid of this article. I've never seen this, and I have no idea why this would happen. Nonetheless, votes from editors who appear to have registered solely to vote — i.e., ballot stuffing — should be discounted, whichever way they go. (As of this post, none of the new editors besides Underdog has made any other edits besides a single vote here, and Underdog has only participated on this article and its VfD.) I apologize for any confusion I have sown. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2006 (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.