Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane mcgonigal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jane mcgonigal
- Game designer. Re-creation of an earlier speedy. No notability proven. Slac speak up! 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable Soltak 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain Article has been expanded.
Delete. Judging by the external link (now removed), looks like blatant self-promotion. --Blu Aardvark 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) speedy delete under CSD A7, and under G4 if this is an exzct or near exact repost of a prevcious valid speedy.DES (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Article asserts notability, although it is highly questionable. Still, it may fall under G4 --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a CSD IMHO. It doesn't qualify under A7 because it does assert the notability of the subject (the word "noted" is actually in the lead sentence). As for being reposted content, the previous deletion was a speedy, and the guidelines suggest that if content is speedied and re-created, then it might conceivably be deserving of an article, so VfD might be a better place to resolve the issue (as Lacrimosus did). Nonetheless, delete unless references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure if this counts as a reference or no, but the article initially contained a link to avantgame.com. I removed the link because it appeared to be to a personal website, rather than an actual reference, but it may be worth noting, and getting a second opinion on. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a CSD IMHO. It doesn't qualify under A7 because it does assert the notability of the subject (the word "noted" is actually in the lead sentence). As for being reposted content, the previous deletion was a speedy, and the guidelines suggest that if content is speedied and re-created, then it might conceivably be deserving of an article, so VfD might be a better place to resolve the issue (as Lacrimosus did). Nonetheless, delete unless references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Is inserting "noted" into the first line of an article really the same thing as asserting notability? I seem to remember reading something about observing the spirit, not the letter...Apollo58 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, see the debate surrounding Monique deMoan for the answer to that one :). . . Slac speak up! 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Article asserts notability, although it is highly questionable. Still, it may fall under G4 --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Please Note: This article has been expanded since being placed for VFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- Jane rocks! She's here at Foo Camp. So she's notable.--Jimbo Wales 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
