Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Greatest Voices in Music: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Journalist (talk | contribs) comment |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Delete''' - wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and Blender Magazine, etc. --[[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and Blender Magazine, etc. --[[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment'''. 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. [[User:Journalist|<font color="navy" face="Garamond">'''O'''ran</font><font color ="green" face="Garamond">'''''e'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Journalist|<font face="Garamond">(talk)</font>]] 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:12, 12 August 2007
- 22 Greatest Voices in Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
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. the_undertow talk 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The kind people? Us? Mandsford 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I agree, its not {{db-nonsense}} material, I can make heads and tails of it. Still doesn't belong here though. Rackabello 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Random, trivial, objectively meaningless. Abberley2 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Strong Delete It could be filed under non sense, OR, advertisement... add on! Brusegadi 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - wouldn't this be a copyvio if it's taken from MTV/Blender/whatever? If not, I don't think it's encyclopedic anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio unless it has sourced information on the list - reactions, press coverage outside MTV and Blender Magazine, etc. --Phirazo 04:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. 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. Orane (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)