| Revision as of 06:56, 7 September 2007 editXihr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,319 edits →[]: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 7 September 2007 edit undoJeh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits →Notable Usenet personalities: procedure violation...Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''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) | ** '''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) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine personalities listed on this page, and of this page itself, seems to me to be contrary to ]. 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. ] 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:21, 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
keepdelete I believeitsome entries can bewellreferenced. 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)
- Comment Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine personalities listed on this page, and of this page itself, seems to me 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 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)