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.
Given how many times this has been nominated for deletion but kept, I think this nomination should be considered incomplete and inadequate until it addresses and responds to those past discussions. postdlf (talk)
21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
keep I'd even say it could be argued that a
WP:SPEEDYKEEP is in order due to the multiple glaring flaws in the nomination. My initial reaction when coming upon this article was
WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, but what I did was to start an RFC that succeeded in narrowing the scope to include only those persons who already have a Wikipedia article. Any person whose article is later deleted is removed from the list. This is therefore a list of related, notable subjects, which is perfectly in step with what lists are for. "Steadily changing" and "tendentious entries" are manifestly not reasons to delete an article. We'd have to scrap millions of articles if those were valid arguments.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
23:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Links to people with their own page, so by definition and by wikipedia standards, they should be notable. but may be change title"Notable youtubers?
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (
WP:SNOW) and a trout for the nom. It's been nominated many times before, and this one doesn't even include specific reasons. "Non-enyclopedic" and "goes against Wikipedia's goals" are more or less the same, and equally vague. "steadily changing" is perfectly fine. "tendentious entries" - the inclusion criteria is fairly clear. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Given how many times this has been nominated for deletion but kept, I think this nomination should be considered incomplete and inadequate until it addresses and responds to those past discussions. postdlf (talk)
21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
keep I'd even say it could be argued that a
WP:SPEEDYKEEP is in order due to the multiple glaring flaws in the nomination. My initial reaction when coming upon this article was
WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, but what I did was to start an RFC that succeeded in narrowing the scope to include only those persons who already have a Wikipedia article. Any person whose article is later deleted is removed from the list. This is therefore a list of related, notable subjects, which is perfectly in step with what lists are for. "Steadily changing" and "tendentious entries" are manifestly not reasons to delete an article. We'd have to scrap millions of articles if those were valid arguments.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
23:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Links to people with their own page, so by definition and by wikipedia standards, they should be notable. but may be change title"Notable youtubers?
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
08:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (
WP:SNOW) and a trout for the nom. It's been nominated many times before, and this one doesn't even include specific reasons. "Non-enyclopedic" and "goes against Wikipedia's goals" are more or less the same, and equally vague. "steadily changing" is perfectly fine. "tendentious entries" - the inclusion criteria is fairly clear. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
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.