Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m typo fixed |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*'''Delete.''' Not notable enough to deserve his own article. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User:Jared|<font color="#0084C9">Jared</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>''[[User talk:Jared|<font color="#009E49">talk</font>]]''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete.''' Not notable enough to deserve his own article. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''[[User:Jared|<font color="#0084C9">Jared</font>]]'''</sup><sub>┘</sub><sup>┌</sup><sub>''[[User talk:Jared|<font color="#009E49">talk</font>]]''</sub><sup>┐</sup>  02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. If we had an article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions later proven false, the servers would crash. Every notable incident has its rumours started by journalists - every one. Just because this is recent doesn't mean that this ''incredibly, incredibly minor'' rumour or its originator is notable. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. If we had an article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions later proven false, the servers would crash. Every notable incident has its rumours started by journalists - every one. Just because this is recent doesn't mean that this ''incredibly, incredibly minor'' rumour or its originator is notable. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<font color="blue" face="Matisse ITC">Charlene</font>]] 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge.''' This article and [[ |
*'''Merge.''' This article and [[Michael Sneed]] contain the similar content. It describes a historical event rather than a bio, so suggest to merge this one into that one. Also the title might need to be changed to conform to wiki rules. [[User:Zhangwl|Zhangwl]]03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 03:10, 19 April 2007
Michael Sneed
- Michael Sneed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; Delete --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep,this article deserves its place.Her report was the first journalistic widely spread in the world.--Ksyrie 02:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment; What is the reason for deletion here? I'm not saying it should be kept, but I'm not sure what the nominator's reason is. Masaruemoto 02:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it's because this doesn't have enough information about Michael Sneed, then either that should be added, or the article name changed to better reflect the content. (if either he, or the story, deserve an article). Masaruemoto 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable enough to deserve his own article. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If we had an article on every journalist who provided unsupported suppositions later proven false, the servers would crash. Every notable incident has its rumours started by journalists - every one. Just because this is recent doesn't mean that this incredibly, incredibly minor rumour or its originator is notable. --Charlene 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. This article and Michael Sneed contain the similar content. It describes a historical event rather than a bio, so suggest to merge this one into that one. Also the title might need to be changed to conform to wiki rules. Zhangwl03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)