Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinoehpoel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I ignored those commentary which attacked the nominator, and didn't see a satisfactory response to the lack of multiple, independant, reliabe sources argument. Daniel 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Xinoehpoel
Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete one of the very few things that happened on Usenet that actually made the news (and the New York Times!) but it never got past a brief "quirky news" story, especially at a time when the press had much bigger fish to fry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:44, 5 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 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The snowball deletes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Conrad show why it would have been inappropriate to nominate them all together. Besides, its only a recommendation, not policy. Epbr123 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeh, and per WP:POINT. --Cheeser1 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the reasoning behind this persons !vote. Epbr123 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the proposer's motives in not following recommended procedure, not excepting "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Jeh 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. Epbr123 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on alternatives to deletion, that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that is an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that you think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. Jeh 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've searched the internet and I can't find any sources. It has to go. Epbr123 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Odd. I got 2,380 hits, the very first of them being a reference to a story about him on Euronews TV. There are good references SOMEwhere. The fact that I don't have time to find them today doesn't prove the article has to go. Jeh 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that you barely seem to have any idea of how notable Usenet is leads me to believe that you don't know how to search the internet very well. Please refer to here, here, here, and here. --Cheeser1 19:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've searched the internet and I can't find any sources. It has to go. Epbr123 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- You can't know that until you've tried it. Which you did not. It seems to me, based on alternatives to deletion, that you are at the very least very strongly encouraged ("should") to try tagging first. (And that is an official "policy" page.) You didn't. AfD is not supposed to be your first response when you see a page that you think can't be improved. If no improvements are forthcoming after a few months, then it may be time for an AfD. Jeh 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Plenty of time has been given to find sources. Tagging will achieve nothing. Epbr123 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the proposer's motives in not following recommended procedure, not excepting "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Jeh 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I urge the closer of this discussion to consider carefully the reasoning behind this persons !vote. Epbr123 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep not as noticable as some of the misguided nominated articles here, but harmless enough and notable enough to stay. --Martin Wisse 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of notability and paucity of reliable sources see [1]. Sure he gets some hits but see WP:GOOGLE. Also the motivation of the nominator is not relevant if the page itself fails to meet the relevant guidelines, as is the case here. Eluchil404 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Question: If you refer us to WP:GOOGLE to assert that Google hits do not aptly measure notability, how come you are basing your vote on the lack of Google hits? There is one reliable source already listed - two are needed to establish notability. If this nomination had been made in good faith, the article would have first been tagged as needing more sources (see Alternatives to Deletion and Before Nominating an AfD). Active editors of the page would have had a chance to find another source, instead of scrambling to find another one before this AfD closes. --Cheeser1 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This article completely lacks NON-TRIVIAL THIRD PARTY SOURCES about the subject, WP:POINT or not. Burntsauce 23:20, 13 September 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
