| Revision as of 04:39, 12 December 2007 editRobJ1981 (talk | contribs)32,546 edits →Starmen.Net: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:06, 12 December 2007 edit undo99.246.129.81 (talk) →Starmen.NetNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :::Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. ] (]) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :::Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. ] (]) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Misplaced Pages: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. ] (]) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ::::Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Misplaced Pages: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. ] (]) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I like how both of you can talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk. ''You'' could be helping to improve this article, but it's easier just to delete it out of hand, isn't it? And with Alexa rankings too, the most useless of all web metrics! You should fill out your argument with a few sock puppets so you can be ''completely certain'' that this scourge of a website that doesn't even have the word "wiki" in its name will never rise again. | |||
Revision as of 13:06, 12 December 2007
Starmen.Net
AfDs for this article:This article on the main Earthbound game website has no assertion of notability, which in this case would involve article talking about the website and other coverage, which seems not to exist for this website. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, as you can see from its previous nomination, it has had two years plus to get any of this information it needs to assert notability, but that stuff is no where in sight. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:CCC User:Krator (t c) 10:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. SharkD (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here we flippin' go again. This site, is notable. It's been mentioned and focused on by many respected blogs and magazines, it's given petitions to Nintendo, as well as the numerous call-ins and mail-ins that Nintendo has taken notice to. Aside from the article needing to be cleaned up, regardless of how long the entry has been in this state, there is no reason for deletion. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of its community and standing as a major fansite of an, albeit obscure, game series. We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Make up your minds and quit reaching for reasons to delete this article. This is the fourth time already. Numanoid (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you have stuff, then start putting stuff in the article already!! It takes four AFD's for people to bother to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Numanoid (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Misplaced Pages: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like how both of you can talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk. You could be helping to improve this article, but it's easier just to delete it out of hand, isn't it? And with Alexa rankings too, the most useless of all web metrics! You should fill out your argument with a few sock puppets so you can be completely certain that this scourge of a website that doesn't even have the word "wiki" in its name will never rise again.
- Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Misplaced Pages: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Numanoid (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)