| Revision as of 10:59, 25 May 2009 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →WeeMee: change to keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:23, 25 May 2009 edit undoDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →WeeMee: pointing out sockpuppet account and responded to false claimsNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Little big eyed people pics from a website. No sources, no notability established, no anything that would make a real article. Was up for deletion and didn't quite get consensus years back but article was never improved and topic has not gotten any more notable than the lack of notability back then. ] (]) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | Little big eyed people pics from a website. No sources, no notability established, no anything that would make a real article. Was up for deletion and didn't quite get consensus years back but article was never improved and topic has not gotten any more notable than the lack of notability back then. ] (]) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - Weeme has been used in numerous notable messaging sites for many years.] (]) 11:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - Weeme has been used in numerous notable messaging sites for many years.] (]) 11:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Note''' This person was determined to be a sockpuppet. Not sure why the account has not been blocked since then. ] (]) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And what's that got to do with establishing notability for an encyclopedia article? ] (]) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ::And what's that got to do with establishing notability for an encyclopedia article? ] (]) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *changed to '''keep''' - third party sources have been provided (for some reason, none of these had appeared when I did a google news search a month ago) -- ] 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) <s>'''delete''' no thrid party coverage in reliable sources. -- ] 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)</s> | *changed to '''keep''' - third party sources have been provided (for some reason, none of these had appeared when I did a google news search a month ago) -- ] 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) <s>'''delete''' no thrid party coverage in reliable sources. -- ] 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)</s> | ||
| *'''SPEEDY Keep''' per ] and significant in-depth that need only be added to the article. Their missing is simply a matter for ], and AfD is not for cleanup. And for those who do not wish to scan through the Google News results, I am myself firmly convinced of notabiity surpassing the ] by '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', and literally dozens upon dozems of others. ] the nom missed these. ''']''' '']'' 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''SPEEDY Keep''' per ] and significant in-depth that need only be added to the article. Their missing is simply a matter for ], and AfD is not for cleanup. And for those who do not wish to scan through the Google News results, I am myself firmly convinced of notabiity surpassing the ] by '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', '''', and literally dozens upon dozems of others. ] the nom missed these. ''']''' '']'' 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' Another reason why BEFORE should become absolutely required with any AfD nom when relevant. It won;t prevent all bad noms, but it will stop at least such as this. The nom could best demonstrate a commitment to improving WP by withdrawing the nomination & helping put in the refs. ''']''' (]) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' Another reason why BEFORE should become absolutely required with any AfD nom when relevant. It won;t prevent all bad noms, but it will stop at least such as this. The nom could best demonstrate a commitment to improving WP by withdrawing the nomination & helping put in the refs. ''']''' (]) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Pshaw. It's up to the people who want there to be an article to prove it deserves one, not the other way around. And the nom was not bad. The fact that the standard people who vote Keep for every AFD they run across are pissed off doesn't mean we need to change policy to make them feel better about themselves. Most of the above links are not good ones at all -- lots of press releases and press release reprints, trivial passing mentions, etc. that fail our requirements for independent, reliable non-trivial sources demonstrating notability. I can best improve Misplaced Pages by removing such policy-violating edits when they are adding to articles, so if the above links were added I'll have to go through and provide a reality check on all of them. ] (]) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:23, 25 May 2009
WeeMee
AfDs for this article:- WeeMee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Little big eyed people pics from a website. No sources, no notability established, no anything that would make a real article. Was up for deletion and didn't quite get consensus years back but article was never improved and topic has not gotten any more notable than the lack of notability back then. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Weeme has been used in numerous notable messaging sites for many years.Varbas (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note This person was determined to be a sockpuppet. Not sure why the account has not been blocked since then. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- And what's that got to do with establishing notability for an encyclopedia article? DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- changed to keep - third party sources have been provided (for some reason, none of these had appeared when I did a google news search a month ago) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
delete no thrid party coverage in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC) - SPEEDY Keep per WP:AFTER and significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that need only be added to the article. Their missing is simply a matter for WP:CLEANUP, and AfD is not for cleanup. And for those who do not wish to scan through the Google News results, I am myself firmly convinced of notabiity surpassing the WP:GNG by BBC News, Scotsman (1), Scotland on Sunday, Telegraph, Scotsman (2), Boston Globe, Industry Standard, RedOrbit, Net Imperative (1), Sourcewire, Market Wire, Net Imperative (2), New Media Age, Business Wire (1), Business Wire (2), Wireless News, Telephony, Sunday Herald, and literally dozens upon dozems of others. Perhaps the nom missed these. Schmidt, 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Another reason why BEFORE should become absolutely required with any AfD nom when relevant. It won;t prevent all bad noms, but it will stop at least such as this. The nom could best demonstrate a commitment to improving WP by withdrawing the nomination & helping put in the refs. DGG (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pshaw. It's up to the people who want there to be an article to prove it deserves one, not the other way around. And the nom was not bad. The fact that the standard people who vote Keep for every AFD they run across are pissed off doesn't mean we need to change policy to make them feel better about themselves. Most of the above links are not good ones at all -- lots of press releases and press release reprints, trivial passing mentions, etc. that fail our requirements for independent, reliable non-trivial sources demonstrating notability. I can best improve Misplaced Pages by removing such policy-violating edits when they are adding to articles, so if the above links were added I'll have to go through and provide a reality check on all of them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)