| Revision as of 16:35, 7 September 2007 editJeh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits →James Bottomley (Usenet innovator): multiple related AFDs in ignorance of rec'd procedure← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:38, 7 September 2007 edit undoEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 editsm →James Bottomley (Usenet innovator)Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Note that one of the sources claimed for this article does not even mention the subject, and the claim it is trying to support ("highest ] number in Britain") is impossible to believe. --] 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Note that one of the sources claimed for this article does not even mention the subject, and the claim it is trying to support ("highest ] number in Britain") is impossible to believe. --] 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the ] page, and of that page as well, seems 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. ] 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the ] page, and of that page as well, seems 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. ] 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Each entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. ] 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:38, 7 September 2007
James Bottomley (Usenet innovator)
- James Bottomley (Usenet innovator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete no claim to notability, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No, he was nothing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the creation of soc.history.moderated is primarily of interest to soc.history.moderated users. It wasn't the first moderated newsgroup. Nor was there any one personality primarily behind opposition to Canter & Siegel. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Note that one of the sources claimed for this article does not even mention the subject, and the claim it is trying to support ("highest Kibo number in Britain") is impossible to believe. --Metropolitan90 13:35, 7 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 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Each entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)