| Revision as of 18:57, 7 September 2007 editGandalf61 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,144 edits Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:05, 7 September 2007 edit undoEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 editsm →Ed ConradNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| **This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. ] 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | **This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. ] 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes ] test. ] 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes ] test. ] 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **I notice you didn't say reliable. The blogs, forums and personal sites linked in the article aren't reliable sources. ] 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:05, 7 September 2007
Ed Conrad
Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - 12:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete 14 footnotes and not a reliable source among them. The only one that looked promising, the CNN search, does not actually return any results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete delete, per nom Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Yamakiri on Firefox 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The snowball deletes at this AfD shows why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Three-to-one could barely be considered consensus. WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The snowball deletes at this AfD shows why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeh. Make it three-to-two. --Cheeser1 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. You need to have a valid reason to keep the article. Epbr123 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources so passes notability test. Gandalf61 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I notice you didn't say reliable. The blogs, forums and personal sites linked in the article aren't reliable sources. Epbr123 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)