Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:22, 7 September 2007 editCheeser1 (talk | contribs)7,317 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 06:56, 7 September 2007 edit undoXihr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,319 edits []: commentNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
*'''Strong Keep''' - IDONTLIKE nom is no reason to delete it. Claiming that Usenet is not notable and its phenomena aren't notable is ludicrous. ] 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' - IDONTLIKE nom is no reason to delete it. Claiming that Usenet is not notable and its phenomena aren't notable is ludicrous. ] 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - list, with exposition, of several related personalities. Would not be superceeded by category. Entries in list seem relatively notable, and some even link to well-sourced articles (the sourcing issue is a red-herring - it's a list, and many entries are already sourced in their respective article). --] 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - list, with exposition, of several related personalities. Would not be superceeded by category. Entries in list seem relatively notable, and some even link to well-sourced articles (the sourcing issue is a red-herring - it's a list, and many entries are already sourced in their respective article). --] 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
** '''Comment'''. If the goal of this is just a list, rather then content within it, I think it would be much better suited as a category. ] 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:56, 7 September 2007

Notable Usenet personalities

Notable Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced and non-notable list. Epbr123 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep delete I believe it some entries can be well referenced. However, i am not sure if all of the people/pseudonyms listed are notable enough. -- GarbageCollection - 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete When an article is a giant list and its only reference is to a school newspaper, that's a bad sign. Besides, this is redundant with Category:Usenet people. I suggest that before deletion it should be combed through for A7/AfD candidates--virtually everyone listed is completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, so below, although as an annotated list, it's better reading than a cold, plain category. --Agamemnon2 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Improve the article with references, don't delete it. Epbr1 has been on an AFD rampage today for "non-notable (to him) Usenet personalities", and the first two responders here have been following him around rubber-stamping these AFDs for the most part. If Gharlane is not a notable Usenet personality then no one is! I believe this is disruptive behavior on wikipedia and should be looked into by admins. Jeh 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entries are unsourced, and given the subject matter, this is a WP:BLP nightmare just waiting to happen. Xihr 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with a bit of cleanup. Needs to remove the POV-ish qualifiers ("eccentric", "unusual") being given to people. Ad more references. Tarc 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - IDONTLIKE nom is no reason to delete it. Claiming that Usenet is not notable and its phenomena aren't notable is ludicrous. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - list, with exposition, of several related personalities. Would not be superceeded by category. Entries in list seem relatively notable, and some even link to well-sourced articles (the sourcing issue is a red-herring - it's a list, and many entries are already sourced in their respective article). --Cheeser1 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. If the goal of this is just a list, rather then content within it, I think it would be much better suited as a category. Xihr 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Categories: