User talk:DarkAudit/Archives/2008/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Apologies, I was acting based on old teachings there, so it may be a little outdated. Though, if it was a-okay for a speedy, how come the AFD was still open? Rudget. 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hoaxes
Boy do I feel stupid. Actually, it's good news in a way. Really obvious hoaxes I've been deleting as vandalism or nonsense. The problem is when we delete as hoax or nonsense that to which our knowledge merely does not extend. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Santa And The Giant Elves
Well spotted - I didn't think to look for that, I just looked at the Friedman originator's contributions. This is either a sock or a friend in on the "joke". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
late ad
all gone. Just as well. I'd have just spent time researching the thing. Dlohcierekim 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Qworty (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for posting the deletion review request for me. I think you were clear about my reasons for wanting to request a review. I assume that I can further clarify, if needed, directly on the page where you posted the request. Thanks for helping me with this.--AlexandreJ (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Barthelmes
I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but Barthelmes' ESPN and NFL.com profiles say he's "on" the Patriots because that was the last team he was on -- those websites don't update profiles, especially for "scrubs" like Barthelmes, when they're released. So if you want to check whether a player is still on a team or not, going there doesn't make sense. Regardless, I'm not sure why him still being on the team would matter in that AfD. He isn't - he was released last August, anyway. But he did play in four preseason games over two years, as well as countless NFL Europe and NCAA games. Pats1 T/C 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD closure
I only noticed after I closed the AfD that there were more AfD's relating to the comic book. Regardless, it shouldn't have been re nominated due to the prior AfD close. The rest should be merged to the main article in my opinion. And I'm debating on doing those as well. I don't see a valid reason for deleting it yet, and you haven't given one either, for any of the AfD's (around 5?). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- They're redundant. If the people who wanted to do the merge were in any way interested, they wouldn't have let the first article sit for a month and a half. They're not bad articles, but nearly everything they have to say is said elsewhere. The characters aren't important enough for their own separate articles. DarkAudit (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although I agree that the author(s) of the articles are lazy, I also believe that being redundant isn't a reason for deletion in my opinion. It makes more sense to merge and redirect. Theres always the possibility that they cannot edit in the near future and just provided the bare minimum. Either way, there is no ownership of articles and its left up to anyone who happens along. I'd recommend that next time you rethink an AfD and instead be bold enough to make the proper adjustments. But theres no harm done so theres no worries. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
gayelle
Gayelle (lesbian), I have added many new RS to the article and therefore I would like you to reconsider your vote that was based on a previous version that did not take your WP:NEO or WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V concerns into account.NewAtThis (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Gay people also didn't decide to call themselves fagots but that article also needs to exist, much like metrosexual, trendy men didn't choose it but it is a term that has come in use. I found yet another really good source. Any suggestions for improvement?NewAtThis (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)