Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleo

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Death phoenix 02:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleo[edit]

Vanity, Delete. Gazpacho 07:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment As it stands, it is clearly not notable. However, there is a woman's magazine in Australia with that name which I consider. May also be a disaggregation page. Save my vote on this until later on. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Article about magazine must be Cleo (magazine), because Cleo is actually cleopatra. Also, miss Cleo is around. Mikkalai 08:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm ahead of you both. Rewritten article. Keep. Uncle G 08:30, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 08:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete Someone is going through Mother's Big Book of Baby Names and they've reached C, apparently. --Wetman 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please try a couple of other names, like peter or nick, or sally, and be surprised how far they've actually gone. AFAIK there has already been a debate about first names or list of first names; I don't quite remember. Mikkalai 09:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nah. It really was a vanity article. Read the original. Rewriting such personal vanity articles to be about something entirely different and notable can be almost as satisfying as slapping a great big {{copyvio}} on top of corporate vanity articles. Moreover, you just know that if we do delete this, someone else will be along to write another Cleo vanity article sooner or later, or we'll end up with stub duplicates of Miss Cleo because someone omitted the "Miss". And this is no different in kind to Cleopatra, of course. Uncle G 10:01, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Uncle G.Capitalistroadster 10:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as disambiguation page. Megan1967 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm sorry to be a spoil-sport, but the new article is not a proper disambiguation page. A Cleo disambiguation page is needed when there are several articles (or redirects) on different subjects that might reasonably be titled Cleo. Usually disambiguation pages are created where there is an article or redirect titled X, and someone comes along to write an article on a different topic with an equally good claim to the title X. The solution is to give the title to a disambiguation page which lists the other articles, and to give the various other articles competing for the title a longer title along the lines of X (in Y). However, that is not the case here. Few of the listed articles would properly be titled Cleo except for the magazine, which is a red-link, meaning it hasn't been created yet. Rather than a disambiguation page, the proposed new content for the Cleo article is mostly a List of people whose first name is Cleo and other things somewhat related to the word Cleo. That isn't a disambiguation page; it is just a list masquerading as a disambiguation page, in this case an especially dumb list. Furthermore, as a process point, even if it was correct to edit the original article in this way, it seems to me very questionable to do it before the VfD vote is completed. This is not the article that was originally written, or even on the topic of the original article, and at least in principle, the article that was submitted to VfD has 5 days to be considered. If it was OK to change the subject of an article submitted to VfD because it seems to an editor to be vanity, then it would be OK to let administrators simply speedy-delete such articles. However, there has never been a consensus for allowing administrators to speedy-delete articles for reasons of vanity, however obvious the vanity might seem to the administrators. People voting on VfD should either leave the articles alone until they are deleted; or else clean them up on the subject on which they were originally written. In this case, that subject is the name "Cleo" But they shouldn't switch the subject to something else, even if that is a fake disambiguation page. People can comment in the VfD vote that the title should be used for a disambiguation page, but people should wait until there is a consensus from the VfD process before they mess around with articles that are submitted here. --BM 02:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Examples like peter or nick, or sally, or pick your faforite name show that given-name articles do not always abide this. Mikkalai 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of those three, only Sally is really a disambiguation page, and only two of the several entries in that list are proper entries for a disambiguation page, meaning links to articles that otherwise would be titled Sally if there weren't competition for that title. The other entries are miscellaneous Sally-cruft. Disambiguation pages should be for disambiguation. As for Peter that is really just a List of famous people named Peter masquerading as a disambiguation page, with a couple of sentences thrown in about the name. Same thing for Nick. So my opinion is that those pages are bad examples to be emulating, and arguably should be deleted. --BM 02:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Quite. But these names are the first that came to my mind. Be sure that there are dosens of such. Did you try, say, er... Simon, Thomas... Mikkalai 05:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Simon, ditto what I said about Peter. Thomas, ditto. These are all just lists of people with that first name masquerading as disambiguation pages. On this Simon list, there is only one article which might logically be titled Simon, and that is Simon (game). On the Thomas list, there aren't any. It seems like we have quite a few of these Lists of people with the first name X articles masquerading as disambiguation pages. --BM 18:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - I am not arguing with you. That's exactly what I am pointing at. Something must be done with it. Lists of people whose first name is Tom or Sam seem weird. But since there are lots of such articles, the issue must be discussed at administrative level, to have a common decidion for all such articles, rather than VfD them one by one. Mikkalai 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion of VFD process moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. Uncle G 21:12, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Delete. Now finally regarding my vote. I vote to delete because once the apparent vanity is cleaned up, this article's topic is a sub-stub about the name Cleo. I don't think sub-stubs are preferable to red-links. If someone cares to expand the article during the VfD (on the subject of the name Cleo), then I will reconsider my vote. --BM 01:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment It might have been helpful, at the time when the article was transformed, for someone to have provided the original text that was being voted on prior to its transformation. It sometimes can take quite a while to find and retrieve items from the history. Just in case it still is helpful, here it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleo, a female name. One of the examples who use this name is Cleo Leong. Her full name is Leong, whom she is a Risk Manangement science student living in Hong Kong.

Keep as disambiguation page. FYI i just added Cleo (television) to the list. bbx 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. I think name disambiguation articles are entirely valid, if some of the things or people concerned are commonly referred to by just that name. For example, someone looking for the apostle Peter might reasonably expect to find him under Peter; so might someone looking for Peter Rabbit if they didn't realise that Rabbit functions as his surname as well as his species. In addition, the history of the name can be encyclopaedic. I do think that pages like Peter should be limited to those commonly known simply as 'Peter' though; so Peter Green and Peter Jackson have no place there. On this specific case, Miss Cleo, the women's magazine, the TV series, the physicists' collaboration, and the programming language at least all look like things which people might reasonably expect to be able to look up as simply 'Cleo'. TSP 15:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep the disambig, and good save. —Korath (Talk) 02:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep Uncle G's version, well done. Gamaliel 21:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Good job. Don't have time to research the CLEO advertising awards, maybe someone else will add them... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.