Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega-zine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 21 August 2008

Mega-zine

I prodded this a while back with the following reason: "Article about a nonnotable website. No reason is given for notability and no external sources are cited. A quick google search shows that the site isn't widely known and not popular enough outside its small fanbase to be worthy of inclusion." The article was taken down but just now has been resurrected with no change in notability or pickup in reliable, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but sort out - I saw this article had been deleted as per PROD, and I thinik it's a worthy subject for an article about the teletext page - see the article for Digitiser, but seems to have become an article about some kind of website keeping the memory of megazine alive, which doesn't seem to be notable in itself. I'll see what I can do to sort the article out a bit in the next couple of days. Is there a wiki-project Teletext? Bradley10 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but as above, sort out. I am the page creator, so my will to keep this page is somewhat biased. It's one of the few pages on teletext (terrestrial or digital, on any channel) which is still submission based. If any teletext page is notable, I think this one is. I believe it is notable, but I suppose the fact I did (and occasionally still do) mix in circles of it's users will cause me to believe that, and it's possible nobody out side the clique I seem to have got my self involved in care, or even knows, about it. That having been said, the current article is poor and unreferenced (icluding, no doubt, some of my edits during a younger and less educated period on Wikipeida). I don't really take much of an interest in the place any more, and currently I have very little time to sit and edit Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see it stay and be tidied up. Alternatively, would stubbing it rather than deleting it not be a better way to clean it up (though I am aware this was not the rationale behind the early speedy delete or this AfD)? Lawful Hippo (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:02, 20 August 2008 edit Bradley10 (talk \| contribs) 116 edits bold ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:25, 21 August 2008 edit undo Lawfulhippo (talk \| contribs) 69 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	'''Keep but sort out''' - I saw this article had been deleted as per PROD, and I thinik it's a worthy subject for an article about the teletext page - see the article for [[Digitiser]], but seems to have become an article about some kind of website keeping the memory of megazine alive, which doesn't seem to be notable in itself. I'll see what I can do to sort the article out a bit in the next couple of days. Is there a wiki-project Teletext? [[User:Bradley10\|Bradley10]] ([[User talk:Bradley10\|talk]]) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)		'''Keep but sort out''' - I saw this article had been deleted as per PROD, and I thinik it's a worthy subject for an article about the teletext page - see the article for [[Digitiser]], but seems to have become an article about some kind of website keeping the memory of megazine alive, which doesn't seem to be notable in itself. I'll see what I can do to sort the article out a bit in the next couple of days. Is there a wiki-project Teletext? [[User:Bradley10\|Bradley10]] ([[User talk:Bradley10\|talk]]) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

			'''Keep''', but as above, sort out. I am the page creator, so my will to keep this page is somewhat biased. It's one of the few pages on teletext (terrestrial or digital, on any channel) which is still submission based. If any teletext page is notable, I think this one is. I believe it is notable, but I suppose the fact I did (and occasionally still do) mix in circles of it's users will cause me to believe that, and it's possible nobody out side the clique I seem to have got my self involved in care, or even knows, about it. That having been said, the current article is poor and unreferenced (icluding, no doubt, some of my edits during a younger and less educated period on Wikipeida). I don't really take much of an interest in the place any more, and currently I have very little time to sit and edit Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see it stay and be tidied up. Alternatively, would stubbing it rather than deleting it not be a better way to clean it up (though I am aware this was not the rationale behind the early speedy delete or this AfD)? [[User:Lawfulhippo\|Lawful Hippo]] ([[User talk:Lawfulhippo\|talk]]) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)