User page | Talk | Links | Sandbox | Dashboard |
This user is the owner of one other Wikipedia account in a manner permitted by policy and it is registered with the arbitration committee. |
Archives for the GB fan talk page | |
---|---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
|
Contents
Castle Bakery and Huws Gray
Hi GB fan. Could you please move these deleted articles to my userspace? I'd like to have a go at working them up with proper sourcing. I think they are notable subjects. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Candleabracadabra/Castle Bakery and User:Candleabracadabra/Huws Gray GB fan 15:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you sir. Much appreciated. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Done
Request to Unprotect Page
Hello, GB_fan. I am requesting that you unprotect the page Toontown Rewritten due to the following reasons. As validated on the deletion page, the subject does meet the criteria to be an eligible subject, but the former articles just did not reflect the significance of the given subject. I wish to recreate the page and incorporate all required information regarding the website toontownrewritten.com and encompass all notabilities.
For background information, Toontown Rewritten is a website entailing a remake of the former Disney game, Disney's Toontown Online. There is a community of thousands attributed from the game that was public for over 10 years. Members of this community want to be informed about future milestones of this private server that is meant to prolong the game, and since the article Disney's Toontown Online is exclusively about the works of Disney Interactive and VR Studios, it is my obligation to create a separate page about the successful private server made by individual sources.
If you could look over this matter it would be much appreciated. Have a nice day.
VeteranToon (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2014
- What you should do is create the article in your userspace such as User:VeteranToon/Toontown Rewritten. Then when you think it meets our inclusion guidelines then you can let me know and I will look it over. If it does meet the guidelines I will unprotect the page and it can be moved to the mainspace. Before you start the page though please read Wikipedia:Your first article GB fan 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
why delete the article of wise disk cleaner
Hi, Why did you delete the article "Wise Disk Cleaner"? "No evidence of notability. There are no independent sources" You can view these pages: http://www.pcworld.com/article/167068/Wise_Disk_Cleaner_Free.html http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.12.toolbox.aspx And I can offer you much more.
Please answer me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnelde (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted the article, Wise Disk Cleaner because it was proposed to be deleted by JamesBWatson on 24 June 2013. Over the next 7 days no one objected to the deletion of the article. Since it was deleted via the prod process I will undelete it if anyone requests. Do you want it undeleted? GB fan 12:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN
Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Don Balfour (politician) BLP issues, about Senator Balfour not measuring up to WP:GNG, made me wonder how acquainted you were with the wi
whether you are sufficiently acquainted with WP:POLITICIAN. Several other contributors brought up this special purpose notability guideline. I think you will find Special purpose guidelines take precedence over the GNG in those limited instances where they apply.
Medal of Honor receipients? Notable without having to satisfey GNG.
Generals and Admirals? Notable without having to satisfy GNG.
Politicians and other officeholders at the State/Province and Federal/Nation level are presumed notable, without having to satisfy GNG, per POLITICIAN.
Have you nominated any other articles for deletion, because you thought the subject didn't measure up to GNG? Is it possible that any of those earlier AFD might have been on articles on topics where a special purpose guideline applied, instead of GNG? Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Special purpose guidelines do not take precedence over GNG. Special guidelines list out under what circumstances the subject is likely to be notable, not when they absolutely are. Take WP:Politician for example. That section is a subsection of the Additional criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Everything that falls under Additional criteria needs to follow the text there. That text says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." When you break that apart it talks about what meeting the special guidelines means and what not meeting them means. It starts off with people are likely to be notable if they meet any of the criteria, including WP:Politician. It does not say they are absolutely notable if they meet a special criteria. It goes on to say that not meeting any of the criteria does not mean that the person is not notable. It also specifically says that someone who does meet one or more of the special guidelines does not guarantee that the person should be included in the encyclopedia. When you actually read the whole guideline it does not say that anyone is automatically notable for who they are.
- Reading the main WP:Notability guideline, the Notability requires verifiable evidence section it says: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." It goes on to say: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, ...." Everything I read says you are wrong in your assertion that the special guidelines override the need for significant coverage in reliable sources. Can you point to a guideline that says the special guidelines override the need for significant coverage in reliable sources? GB fan 02:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't answer the question you asked. Everything I have ever nominated at AFD is because it did not in my estimation meet WP:Notability. If you feel my nominations might be flawed, you can go back through my contributions and evaluate them and ask for WP:Deletion review on any you want. GB fan 10:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
hi
but it s his page and he asked me to remove the page shouldnt it be up to him? how can i delete his page ?ill just go into hiz account my name is tyla joyes my father wayne ray wants me to delete his page so please stop changing it back it needs to be erased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.64.63 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not remove sourced information from the article again. Assuming you are his daughter, he does not get to decide what information is in the article. GB fan 17:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
but it s his page and he asked me to remove the page shouldnt it be up to him? how can i delete his page ?ill just go into hiz account i need to delete wayne ray s page he asked me too, there are mistakes in the article . I need to know how i can do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylajoyes (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- To begin with it is not his page. It is a page about him. If there are mistakes, go to the article's talk and explain what the problems are and provide reliable sources to back up your information. If you do not believe the article meets our notability guidelines you can follow the process at WP:AFD. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page. GB fan 17:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)