| Revision as of 09:34, 6 January 2007 editDennisthe2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,055 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:00, 6 January 2007 edit undoCyberAnth (talk | contribs)7,558 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. ]\<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep''' - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. ]\<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep'''. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --] 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep'''. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --] 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| '''Comment''' - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and is held to a higher standard | |||
| He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one: | |||
| * (also see its root URL at ) - violates because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is anonymously written "reader submission" and cannot be used per ]. | |||
| * - an Internet Forum per ] "should not be used as sources" and fails because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"! | |||
| * - a BBC article, "Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'", that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus '''Synthesis'''. However, the article would be a great source in ]. | |||
| * - clearly falls under ] "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". | |||
| ] 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:00, 6 January 2007
Juicy girl
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- keep Article asserts notability and provides sources, it could stand improvement but article quality is not a reason for deletion. Sources provided speak to notability and verifability, not a neologism. Wintermut3 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Before nominating an AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Misplaced Pages should not be Bowdlerized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep given that nomination is either in bad faith or at least the criteria given are clearly false. It just boggles my mind that WP:WINAD is given as a reason for deletion here when the page clearly includes material that goes beyond a definition. --Jackhorkheimer 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\ 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and is held to a higher standard
He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:
- (also see its root URL at ) - violates because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site is a "community portal", primarily an Internet Forum. The article is anonymously written "reader submission" and cannot be used per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet.
- description of a bar girl - an Internet Forum per WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet "should not be used as sources" and fails because posts on Forums are clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"!
- - a BBC article, "Asia's sex trade is 'slavery'", that nowhere mentions the term "Juicy girl". Using it in the article is thus Synthesis. However, the article would be a great source in Trafficking in human beings.
- - clearly falls under WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet "should not be used as sources" and blatantly fails because the site is clearly not one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
CyberAnth 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: