685:
disingenuous since we have all made mistakes of various and sorted types, big and small, but most people try to hide theirs. Seriously, get off the soapbox, Andrew, it isn't helping anyone or anything. He made a minor mistake and clearly knows and admits it, bludgeoning the point isn't helpful but it is rude.
741:
Web content of no clear notability, a quick look on youtube shows that the first episode has had 4,100 views since the 18th. While things like page views/googlehits etc. aren't usable to show notability or lack of, it does indicate that this youtube series has a very minor following for something in
484:
AGF does not mean ignoring clear examples of bad judgement, but okay, I'll play along and take a look at your contributions per your request. Where should I start? The part on your user page where you link to examples of your favourite vandalism? Or how about the delicious tidbit a week ago where
333:
What CSD criteria would you delete it under? It's got enough content to not qualify for A7, the YouTube channel probably exists (though it's not notable) so you can't do G3, not particularly vicious enough for a G10 or really non-neutral advertising to get a G11. Your best best is for a snow delete,
404:
If that's your understanding of A7, then you need to stay away from
Articles for Creation, voluntarily or otherwise. A7 is nothing to do with article length. You also need to make sure to actually check sources. Unsourced inflammatory content about real people is a significant legal problem for
684:
per GNG. And I'm not going to complain about a mistake, since we all make them. And I'm not going to complain about AfC since I haven't volunteered to help out in this understaffed area. And I'm certainly not going to question anyone's competence or faith because not only is that incivil, it is
378:
My understanding is that A7 is for articles like "Flopsy is my pet rabbit. I feed him twice a day and clean his hutch". I'd probably only call A7 on long articles if they were borderline incomprehensible gibberish. The article does assert importance - it's a specific web TV show (or at least the
485:
you tell a new user to violate copyright by uploading newspaper scans and then whine when Roger (quite rightly) tells you not to do that? Dear me, it's such a scrumptuous buffet I scarecely know where to start! Regarding your second point, I never said A7 and A10 are the same ("You
592:, because a simple AfC decline will just sit there left to rot with about 65,000 others unless somebody actually spots it. Here, it will get wiped. Now just drop it. (Regarding copyright policies, I'm somewhat surprised you overlooked the advice I gave this afternoon
489:
need..."), and it's probably best not to call attention to that, as you're coming dangerously close to admitting that you knowingly created an attack article as opposed to a non-notable one, which is, uh, pretty bad. I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in:
239:
This should have never gotten through our processes and should have been a G3 candidate on first sight (and would have been if not for falsified sources and the amount of editors who don't want to go anywhere near content involving this series; even then, do some
437:
and go and have a look through the entire history of my contributions to see just how many AfC articles I have declined due to sourcing problems, or how many responses I have given on the help desk about lack of notability and sourcing.
359:
It doesn't matter how long the article is to qualify for deletion under A7, just that it is web content that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The article does not do so, thus it would be eligible for
555:
Nobody's asking or expecting you to have complete ultimate knowledge of every one of
Knowledge (XXG)'s one jillion policy pages, but it's a good idea to really watch the major important ones (paricularly the CSD's,
175:
534:, then I'll listen to people telling me what I can and can't do. Until then, providing I'm civil, follow policy as close as I can remember, and do stuff in good faith, I'll edit what I want where I want, thanks. --
450:
this AfD - so don't assume I want this article kept. Also, "Unsourced inflammatory content about real people" is G10 or a BLP PROD, NOT an A7. Get your CSDs right. I'm going to say this in bold so it sinks in :
446:
sources! This mistake happened because I saw the sources, I checked them, but made an erroneous assumption that this article and an unrelated one were the same thing. You seem to have forgotten I
593:
439:
128:
169:
724:- There is absolutely no reason provided by the article that its subject is significant at all, and the article seems to be just a promotion of a web video series.
64:
135:
707:
648:
326:
as unnotable web content. The sources are, as pointed out, falsified, and the web series has no claim of notability. 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
60:
742:
its third series. Exactly why Bad Girls Club's material was copied into this article in the first place I don't know, but this needs to go.
700:
641:
101:
96:
17:
105:
440:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for creation/Martin_Shervington
614:
544:
473:
393:
348:
314:
228:
190:
88:
770:
157:
588:
If I didn't know those policies, I wouldn't have thought to AfD it in the first place! In fact, doing it this way round is
280:
and a slap on the wrists for any and all editors who let it get through
Articles For Creation (seriously, what the hell?)
833:
40:
793:
151:
746:
215:
761:
the author to death and finally tighten AfC to quick-fail submissions not meeting at least basic standards. —
147:
814:
797:
789:
774:
749:
733:
712:
653:
616:
579:
546:
517:
475:
424:
395:
369:
350:
316:
299:
272:
230:
70:
695:
636:
560:
and copyvios), especially when advising newbies and/or dealing with potentially legally sensitive areas.
92:
829:
810:
197:
36:
743:
612:
542:
471:
391:
346:
312:
226:
84:
76:
600:", let alone the ballache of getting the correct clearance from several different organisations on
365:
263:
183:
460:
241:
766:
729:
218:
really exists, and this looks like some sort of parody / attack on it which is itself unsourced.
527:
338:
more than necessary until you're absolutely convinced what they're doing is motivated malice. --
214:
that "Bad Girls Club" was a sanitised name for mainstream television. However, it appears that
686:
627:
163:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
828:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
805:- Get rid of it now! Looks like the real article already exists and parody is not notable. --
758:
380:
335:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
806:
785:
557:
531:
495:
456:
434:
248:
crufters, only this time involving a $ 3 YouTube parody that doesn't need an article here.
207:
605:
535:
464:
384:
339:
305:
219:
57:
721:
53:
561:
499:
406:
361:
281:
251:
788:
with no reliable sources at all. Why was this submission accepted in the first place?
762:
725:
122:
334:
I reckon. Bear in mind there's a newbie writing an article behind this, so don't
405:
the
Foundation, and you're enabling it. That's absolutely not acceptable.
604:- so to claim I don't understand copyright issues is somewhat comical). --
244:
and look at the links and content). Yet another godawful article from the
455:. Don't do them unless you are utterly convinced it's a sure fire case.
601:
822:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
626:
Maybe everyone needs to drop it, and just let the process work.
492:
Unsourced attacks on living people give WMF lawyers ulcers.
210:
on the grounds it had multiple sources from TV Guide, and
453:
Speedy deletes are hostile to newbies and scare them away
526:
I'm with Dennis on this one. You are being particularly
118:
114:
110:
182:
494:
Don't do them again, ever, under any circumstances.
598:
You must make sure your picture respects copyrights
196:
530:and rude. When you haul me up for a topic ban on
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
836:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
433:I can't believe you even said that. Please
442:is one example today, and that's one
304:Alright, I made a mistake - chill! --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
383:, so this point is probably moot. --
24:
61:The Blade of the Northern Lights
815:17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
798:14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
775:11:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
750:00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
734:22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
713:22:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
654:22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
617:22:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
580:22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
547:22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
518:22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
476:21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
425:21:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
396:20:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
370:19:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
351:18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
317:14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
300:13:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
273:12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
231:10:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
71:20:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
459:has more. (As, in fact, does
379:claim is). Still - I forsee
853:
216:Bad Girls Club (season 7)
825:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
206:I passed this through
208:Articles for Creation
763:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
711:
703:
698:
656:
652:
644:
639:
602:this site I wrote
435:assume good faith
270:
844:
827:
790:Electric Catfish
705:
701:
696:
646:
642:
637:
625:
610:
577:
574:
571:
568:
540:
515:
512:
509:
506:
469:
422:
419:
416:
413:
389:
344:
310:
297:
294:
291:
288:
271:
266:
260:
259:
254:
224:
201:
200:
186:
138:
126:
108:
67:
34:
852:
851:
847:
846:
845:
843:
842:
841:
840:
834:deletion review
823:
606:
575:
572:
569:
566:
536:
513:
510:
507:
504:
465:
420:
417:
414:
411:
385:
381:snowballs ahead
340:
306:
295:
292:
289:
286:
264:
257:
252:
249:
220:
143:
134:
99:
83:
80:
65:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
850:
848:
839:
838:
818:
817:
800:
778:
777:
752:
736:
715:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
620:
619:
583:
582:
562:Andrew Lenahan
550:
549:
521:
520:
500:Andrew Lenahan
479:
478:
428:
427:
407:Andrew Lenahan
399:
398:
373:
372:
354:
353:
328:
327:
321:
320:
319:
282:Andrew Lenahan
275:
246:Bad Girls Club
204:
203:
140:
85:Bad B*tch Club
79:
77:Bad B*tch Club
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
849:
837:
835:
831:
826:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:Speedy Delete
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:Speedy delete
753:
751:
748:
745:
740:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:Speedy Delete
716:
714:
710:
709:
704:
699:
693:
692:
689:
683:
680:
679:
655:
651:
650:
645:
640:
634:
633:
630:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
615:
613:
611:
609:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
578:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
551:
548:
545:
543:
541:
539:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
516:
501:
497:
493:
488:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
474:
472:
470:
468:
462:
458:
454:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
423:
408:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
394:
392:
390:
388:
382:
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
358:
357:
356:
355:
352:
349:
347:
345:
343:
337:
332:
331:
330:
329:
325:
324:Speedy Delete
322:
318:
315:
313:
311:
309:
303:
302:
301:
298:
283:
279:
278:Speedy delete
276:
274:
269:
267:
256:
255:
247:
243:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
227:
225:
223:
217:
213:
209:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
137:
133:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
72:
68:
62:
59:
55:
51:
50:speedy delete
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
824:
821:
802:
781:
754:
738:
717:
706:
690:
687:
681:
647:
631:
628:
607:
597:
589:
565:
537:
503:
491:
486:
466:
452:
447:
443:
410:
386:
341:
323:
307:
285:
277:
261:
250:
245:
236:
221:
211:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
131:
49:
47:
31:
28:
807:UsedEdgesII
739:Snow delete
170:free images
608:Ritchie333
538:Ritchie333
498:has more.
467:Ritchie333
387:Ritchie333
342:Ritchie333
308:Ritchie333
222:Ritchie333
58:Orangemike
830:talk page
461:WP:BRICKS
362:Rorshacma
336:bite them
242:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
832:or in a
726:Ducknish
708:Join WER
649:Join WER
212:assuming
129:View log
39:or in a
786:WP: WEB
759:WP:BITE
747:another
744:Someone
528:uncivil
448:created
265:chatter
176:WP refs
164:scholar
102:protect
97:history
784:Fails
782:Delete
688:Dennis
682:Delete
629:Dennis
590:better
558:WP:BLP
532:WP:ANI
496:WP:BLP
457:WP:WER
237:Delete
148:Google
106:delete
66:話して下さい
771:track
722:WP:A7
691:Brown
632:Brown
463:). --
191:JSTOR
152:books
136:Stats
123:views
115:watch
111:links
52:per
16:<
811:talk
794:talk
767:talk
730:talk
720:per
596:of "
594:here
487:also
444:with
366:talk
253:Nate
184:FENS
158:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
573:bli
511:bli
418:bli
360:A7.
293:bli
198:TWL
127:– (
56:by
813:)
796:)
773:)
757:,
732:)
697:2¢
694:-
638:2¢
635:-
576:nd
570:ar
567:St
564:-
514:nd
508:ar
505:St
502:-
421:nd
415:ar
412:St
409:-
368:)
296:nd
290:ar
287:St
284:-
178:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
69:)
54:A7
809:(
792:(
769:•
765:(
728:(
702:©
643:©
364:(
268:)
262:(
258:•
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
132:·
125:)
87:(
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.