| Revision as of 11:43, 17 May 2008 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →kind of stupid question: adequate nomination, no lulz← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:46, 17 May 2008 edit undoEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →kind of stupid question: one source more, maybe twoNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --'']''. ] 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | :If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --'']''. ] 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.] (]) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ::Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.] (]) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::I would be happy myself with one more source like the one at ninemsn. With two more, the article would pass any AfD comfortably --] (]) 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have to TELL THE WIKITRUTH! We're doin' it for the lulz! ] (]) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | I have to TELL THE WIKITRUTH! We're doin' it for the lulz! ] (]) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 17 May 2008
kind of stupid question
why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")
- If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --Have a nice day. Running 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would be happy myself with one more source like the one at ninemsn. With two more, the article would pass any AfD comfortably --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite. Most of the delete arguments are based on ED's lacking notability, on the basic question of the number and strength of reliable sources. If it were deleted and one or two new articles appeared giving it substantial coverage in major publications those arguments become irrelevant - anyone could recreate the article and there would be no basis in policy for deleting it again.Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to TELL THE WIKITRUTH! We're doin' it for the lulz! Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly how is this comment relevant or helpful to the discussion? Acalamari 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- To point out how the rapid nomination for deletion almost immediately after a DrV discussion and re-creation makes everyone here look like process wonk circle jerks. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the DRV recommended to relist at AfD, which means that re-creating and inmediately nominating for deletion was exactly what had to be done. No lulz for you today --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- To point out how the rapid nomination for deletion almost immediately after a DrV discussion and re-creation makes everyone here look like process wonk circle jerks. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
SPAs
Would it be possible to indent the comments by IPs and new SPA accounts? its rather difficult to tell them apart from established editor comments at present. MBisanz 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with {{spa}}, if applicable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
comment moved
I moved a comment that had been placed at the very top of the afd page, down to the end where it should have been placed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikinfo precedent
I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you think it's sourcing is not up to snuff, re-nom it citing this fact. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- So nominated. Celarnor 01:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)