321:
qualify for speedy deletion. However, that's not nearly enough. When you are nominating an article for deletion, you are supposed to state why the article should be deleted— i.e. what policies and guidelines does it fail to meet, and how it fails to meet these policies. Otherwise that defeats the entire purpose of the discussion (you can't lead a discussion if you don't know what to discuss). Moreover, people stating "delete per nom" makes the entire process more confusing. As a closing
Administrator, I definitely wouldn't delete the article. The least I could do is ask that people restart the discussion process.
216:. The nominator has failed to provide a rationale for nominating the article for deletion. Moreover, half of the editors here who suggest that the page be deleted have also failed to give a valid reason. It seems there is a growing tendency for people to want an article deleted simply because it needs to be worked on. Deletion shouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind; it isn't an accomplishment.
299:
I made it very clear that this did not qualify for a speedy deletion, so I brought it here. I made quite sure that I DID NOT assert an opinion, and went as far as stressing that I am leaving it in the hands of others. Many times when an article doesn't quite fit PROD or Speedy deletion, it is taken to AfD in the spirit of debate and discussion.
298:
Pointing out that a particular user is the 'only one' who knows policy is belittling to others. It would be best suited to 'congratulate' users on their knowledge of policy on the respective talk page, instead of a public handshake. As the nominator, I'm responding to your comment about my 'failure.'
249:
Alright, I'll list a few. Without secondary sources, this is inherently POV (as it stands, the list is presented as The Truth, the article would need a secondary source to assess this list somehow). Without secondary sources, this is also a copyright violation. In order to qualify for fair use,
320:
First off, I did not state that the editor was the only one who knew the policies. I stated that he was the only one who "displayed" knowledge of the policies. There is a difference. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a well-deserved public handshake. Yes, you stated that the article did not
250:
there would need to be critical commentary, of which there is none (Knowledge (XXG) policy further dictates this missing critical commentary must be attributable to a reliable, independent sources). People come out with these "Greatest Evar" lists all the time, how is this list notable? --
268:). I was just troubled by the fact that people were voting "delete" without citing specific reasons (as if simply trying to get in on the discussion). You are the only one here who display any knowledge of our policies.
263:
Those are very valid points. I was never implying that the article be kept (this is, after all, the intellectual property of MTV and
Blender Magazine— there is such a list that was aired on TV in 2003, and is reproduced
117:
This was tagged as speedy for nonsense, but doesn't qualify so I took it off the chopping block. I'm bringing it to you, the kind people, to decide this one. I would have PROD'd it, but it is actively being worked on.
110:
83:
78:
87:
70:
17:
265:
410:
394:
364:
342:
311:
289:
254:
237:
208:
196:
179:
167:
155:
143:
130:
52:
204:
Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and
Blender Magazine, etc. --
426:
36:
187:- wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow.
74:
66:
58:
425:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
151:
I agree, its not {{db-nonsense}} material, I can make heads and tails of it. Still doesn't belong here though.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
373:
Whether the show was "stupidly done," or weakly premised has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
305:
124:
389:
337:
284:
232:
152:
49:
361:
192:
300:
119:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
374:
322:
269:
217:
407:
176:
164:
140:
188:
360:. Full list is copyvio, show was stupidly done, premise is weak, list is useless.
251:
205:
104:
419:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
175:
It could be filed under non sense, OR, advertisement... add on!
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
429:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
406:as copyvio and POV, as stated by Phirazo.--
163:Random, trivial, objectively meaningless.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
139:per nom. The kind people? Us?
1:
411:12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
395:09:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
365:03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
343:19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
312:05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
290:00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
255:17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
238:14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
209:04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
197:03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
180:02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
168:01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
156:22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
144:22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
131:20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
67:22 Greatest Voices in Music
59:22 Greatest Voices in Music
53:01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
446:
422:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
173:Speedy Strong Delete
308:
195:
127:
437:
424:
392:
387:
380:
340:
335:
328:
309:
307:
287:
282:
275:
235:
230:
223:
191:
128:
126:
108:
90:
34:
445:
444:
440:
439:
438:
436:
435:
434:
433:
427:deletion review
420:
390:
381:
375:
338:
329:
323:
306:
285:
276:
270:
233:
224:
218:
125:
81:
65:
62:
50:Fuhghettaboutit
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
443:
441:
432:
431:
415:
414:
413:
400:
399:
398:
397:
368:
367:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
315:
314:
293:
292:
258:
257:
241:
240:
211:
199:
182:
170:
158:
146:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
442:
430:
428:
423:
417:
416:
412:
409:
405:
402:
401:
396:
393:
388:
386:
385:
378:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
363:
362:Wasted Time R
359:
356:
355:
344:
341:
336:
334:
333:
326:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
310:
304:
303:
297:
296:
295:
294:
291:
288:
283:
281:
280:
273:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
253:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
236:
231:
229:
228:
221:
215:
212:
210:
207:
203:
200:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
181:
178:
174:
171:
169:
166:
162:
159:
157:
154:
150:
149:Strong Delete
147:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
129:
123:
122:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
421:
418:
403:
383:
382:
376:
357:
331:
330:
324:
302:the_undertow
301:
278:
277:
271:
246:
226:
225:
219:
213:
201:
184:
172:
160:
148:
136:
121:the_undertow
120:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
153:Rackabello
408:JayJasper
177:Brusegadi
165:Abberley2
141:Mandsford
189:Tony Fox
111:View log
252:Phirazo
247:Comment
214:Comment
206:Phirazo
84:protect
79:history
404:Delete
391:(talk)
358:Delete
339:(talk)
286:(talk)
234:(talk)
202:Delete
193:(arf!)
185:Delete
161:Delete
137:Delete
88:delete
46:delete
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
266:here
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
379:ran
327:ran
274:ran
222:ran
109:– (
48:.--
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
384:e
377:O
332:e
325:O
279:e
272:O
227:e
220:O
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.