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

The talk page Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD was split into individual talk pages for each proposal, to limit the size of the talk page and facilitate individual discussions on each proposal. The history and attributions for the comments made before the split can be seen by following the history link on the /General talk page.

Proposal X

I have a tenth proposal for the planned expansion.

---

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

Any article whose contents are directed to a specific person that Wikipedia does not represent.

--Ryan! | Talk 14:40, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? I couldn't even think of a possible interpretation... --Sketchee 14:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please resolve the ambiguity and vagueness in this sentence. At present, I'm not sure what you're even getting at. Can you give an (abridged) example of an article that would fall under this proposal? JRM 14:46, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

This is for all the articles that are created when somebody thinks they're actually going to send a message to the subject of the articles. --Ryan! | Talk 14:49, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Example: [[John Doe]]
Content: We love you Johhhhn!!! wooo hooo! We're you #1 fans; yaaay!!

Hmm. Is that equivalent to Any article not written for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers? I think that would generally be very difficult to apply, and more suitable for VfD than for CSD. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Any other Speedy Delete candidate could be classed that way; this is more of a specific group of candidates. Also, I think this is beyond VfD because this type of "article" is blatantly not worth saving (or putting up on VfD) in its original form. --Ryan! | Talk 14:58, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's better; thanks! When should I add it to the expansion page? --Ryan! | Talk 15:20, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Anytime you like, I expect. You do have about eight hours before voting starts, though. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. --Ryan! | Talk 15:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The current wording is much better. Good job chicos/as!--Sketchee 02:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would love to see this extended to something like: "any text which is clearly in a form which is not an encyclopedia article, and whose content could not reasonably be turned into one. Examples include correspondance, poetry, appeals for action, diary entries, invective."

DJ Clayworth 05:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then twenty people will ask you to define "clearly" and "reasonably". You have to be specific. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:10, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)