Ferdinand4321

A tag has been placed on Zontar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fan-1967 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've answered on the article Talk page. To answer your other question, I get my "kicks" as you put it by keeping Wikipedia free of unsourced entries on non-notable subjects. Youtube gets 65,000 videos a day. Do you think we want Wikipedia to get 65,000 articles every day about those videos? Produce some external sources that say that these particular videos are notable. Standards are at Wikipedia:Notability (web). -- Fan-1967 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Several points:

An ad is not a Reliable Source. Have people actually written about these videos?

Why should we have an article about this and not the other 64,999 videos youtube gets every day?

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. Whether you like TV shows is irrelevant. Those are subjective measures. We can verify, however, that there are thousands of newspaper articles and reviews on news sites of even the worst dreck of televison. It doesn't mean they're good. It means they're notable. I have no idea if your videos are good. It doesn't matter. I've seen nothing to indicate they're notable.

These are your videos, aren't they? You'd like to list them here in hopes of getting more people to view them? We call that advertising. It's not what Wikipedia is for. Fan-1967 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From a UK user

Hi, I thought you might like a Brit's point of view on this: it is irrelevant where a person is from to comment on an article, indeed to nominate it for speedy deletion or any other form of deletion. To satisfy notability criteria, the subject must have enough verifiable and reliable sources (supplied by yourself, preferably) so that it is within reasonable expectation that anyone, anywhere in the world can at least ascertain its worthiness of an entry in an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but this article does not fulfill any of these requirements. You are not furthering your case by being incivil to the user who is quite rightly trying to point you in the right direction to the salient policies either. Bubba hotep 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further replies

I've replied on the article Talk page. That's where the discussion belongs. Fan-1967 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lambrigg Crossing

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lambrigg Crossing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Proposed deletion of Jack Midson

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jack Midson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing notability requirements

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nuttah (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Pulleine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Natal, Zululand and Richard Glyn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)