| Revision as of 22:18, 15 March 2006 editBatmanand (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,783 edits reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:43, 29 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| ⚫ | == ] == | ||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination ]'''. ] 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | === ] === | ||
| Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is ] and ] where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- ] 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is ] and ] where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- ] 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 6: | Line 12: | ||
| **No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- ] 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | **No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- ] 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? ] | ] 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | ***So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? ] | ] 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ****Does the UK list you prominently anywhere? Does it use you as a prominent resource in notable government work? -- ] 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 22:43, 29 March 2022
- 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination WP:POINT. Ezeu 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The New York Times
Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Very funny. Batmanand | Talk 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You're joking, right? dcandeto 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- Alpha269 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? Batmanand | Talk 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Does the UK list you prominently anywhere? Does it use you as a prominent resource in notable government work? -- Alpha269 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? Batmanand | Talk 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- Alpha269 22:10, 15 March 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.