User talk:Mysidia/Archive/2

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form, any comments regarding this page should be directed to my talk page

Archives /Archive/1 /Archive/2 /Archive/3

Chet (Sep 25, 2005)

Why do you oppose Chet Shakesbeare? The articles are useful, encyclopedic and refer the user to several very humorous sites. Potatoes345 19:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This note was responded to on Potatoes345's talk page. --Mysidia (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, Chet Shakesbeare does inpart refer to a rather minor website. However, Chet's "articles" have been published in several literary arts magazines and while Wikipedia is not a web directory, there is no problem with having articles on various topics. After all, one of Wikipedia's greatest assets is its incredible breadth on a variety of subjects that few other encyclopedias discuss. Potatoes345 23:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of articles in literary magazines could indicate notability, but the article doesn't cite any of them -- until it does, there is not particularly any verifiable indication of the subject having encyclopedic importance. If the subject is really of importance, someone could always recreate the article later, citing the importance, and satisfying the objects... Points/reasons against deletion should really be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"chet shakesbeare", so that they would be heard in the debate. --Mysidia (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly (Oct 1, 2005)

I have read WP:CSD carefully, and it seems pretty clear that CSD:G4 also applies to re-creation of articles previously speedied:

4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. Note that:

Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted before they delete it again;

We can--and should--use the CSD process when appropriate, rather than clog up the AfD backlog. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no criteria an article meets other than G4 for previously deleted content, when the deletion was through speedy deletion, and doesn't meet any other CSD on its own, then it's not a good speedy candidate. It seems someone updated the criteria in an attempt to clarify some other issue. In any event, i've started a discussion here, because this is more important, than any one article.

We must be vigilant about keeping the CSD reasonable, so we don't see speedy creep that ultimately starts hitting possibly useful content, as well as the junk. There is a reason that dicdef is not a CSD: many useful stubs are dicdefs --Mysidia (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed vandalism (Oct 1, 2005)

I reverted some lame vandalism of your userpage. Update your vandalcounter! (if you have one) :) --inks 23:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. --Mysidia (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan of the Dead Goat (Oct 2, 2005)

I checked out the Google hits for Clan of the Dead Goat, and found out that only 85 of them are actually unique hits. The rest are almost certainly individual forum posts. I left a note to that effect on the deletion page, but figured that since you based your keep vote on the number of hits, you might want to reconsider. The other potential keeper for the article, it's Alexa ranking, is actually only the ranking for it's much larger hosting site, and thus not a good criteria to base votes off of. --Icelight 12:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]