Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The New York Times: 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 22:10, 15 March 2006 editAlpha269 (talk | contribs)179 edits []: response← Previous edit Revision as of 22:18, 15 March 2006 edit undoBatmanand (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,783 edits replyNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:
*'''Keep''' You're joking, right? ] 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' You're joking, right? ] 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
**No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- ] 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) **No, not joking. If being a front-page resource for the NYT makes one unnotable, this paper is not notable. -- ] 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
***So presumably by your logic, being a citizen of the UK does not make me notable, and so the UK itself is not notable? ] | ] 22:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:18, 15 March 2006

The New York Times

Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)