| Revision as of 07:10, 23 July 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,072 edits →[]: tabloid← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:29, 23 July 2007 edit undoFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Solitaire Meissmer disappearance}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Solitaire Meissmer disappearance}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. ] created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. ] created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? ] 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:29, 23 July 2007
Solitaire Meissmer disappearance
- Solitaire Meissmer disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. User:Violetriga created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? Mister.Manticore 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)