Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cory Scott (NiTROACTiVE)/VfD 20130806"

From DoomWiki.org

m (unsigned times + comment)
m (reply + vote)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
::: Feel free to [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Doom_Wiki:Central_Processing&action=edit&section=new propose one], but IMO it would do more harm than good.  Unlike Wikipedia, we routinely cover topics with no known written records [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cacodemon&oldid=74359#Hissy]; sometimes the only way to create an accurate article is with the involved parties' help.  We can't prove that a Doom Wiki account belongs to a certain person anyway; sometimes we think it's a troll impersonating them (e.g. [[Doom Wiki:Central Processing/2006#Rapid-delete for people articles|Ruba]]).  We end up having to judge each edit as though made by an unrelated editor, and when we do, the large majority turn out non-notable regardless.  Some more previous discussion is [[Doom Wiki talk:Criteria for people articles#Concerns|here]].    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 
::: Feel free to [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Doom_Wiki:Central_Processing&action=edit&section=new propose one], but IMO it would do more harm than good.  Unlike Wikipedia, we routinely cover topics with no known written records [http://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Cacodemon&oldid=74359#Hissy]; sometimes the only way to create an accurate article is with the involved parties' help.  We can't prove that a Doom Wiki account belongs to a certain person anyway; sometimes we think it's a troll impersonating them (e.g. [[Doom Wiki:Central Processing/2006#Rapid-delete for people articles|Ruba]]).  We end up having to judge each edit as though made by an unrelated editor, and when we do, the large majority turn out non-notable regardless.  Some more previous discussion is [[Doom Wiki talk:Criteria for people articles#Concerns|here]].    [[User:Ryan W|Ryan W]] 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
:::::I guess you're right. It's just irritating to see articles that exist to massage someone's ego. [[User:Grain of Salt|Grain of Salt]] 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  
 
* '''Delete'''.  I don't see how reviewing crappy Doom Wads, especially Terry wads to be something notable.  Other than reviewing Doom Wads, he has done nothing notable within the Doom Community, so I agree with the nomination. [[User:Justice Infinity|Justice ∞]] 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 
* '''Delete'''.  I don't see how reviewing crappy Doom Wads, especially Terry wads to be something notable.  Other than reviewing Doom Wads, he has done nothing notable within the Doom Community, so I agree with the nomination. [[User:Justice Infinity|Justice ∞]] 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  
 
'''Objection:''' This guy also has an upcoming megawad coming up, but why doesn't having over a thousand people who like you make you notable? {{Unsigned|66.57.205.225}} 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 
'''Objection:''' This guy also has an upcoming megawad coming up, but why doesn't having over a thousand people who like you make you notable? {{Unsigned|66.57.205.225}} 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
*'''Delete'''. Not notable. [[User:Grain of Salt|Grain of Salt]] 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  
 
== Objection. ==
 
== Objection. ==

Revision as of 21:38, 6 August 2013

You guys really need some kind of WP:COI equivalent. Grain of Salt 02:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose one, but IMO it would do more harm than good.  Unlike Wikipedia, we routinely cover topics with no known written records [1]; sometimes the only way to create an accurate article is with the involved parties' help.  We can't prove that a Doom Wiki account belongs to a certain person anyway; sometimes we think it's a troll impersonating them (e.g. Ruba).  We end up having to judge each edit as though made by an unrelated editor, and when we do, the large majority turn out non-notable regardless.  Some more previous discussion is here.    Ryan W 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess you're right. It's just irritating to see articles that exist to massage someone's ego. Grain of Salt 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how reviewing crappy Doom Wads, especially Terry wads to be something notable. Other than reviewing Doom Wads, he has done nothing notable within the Doom Community, so I agree with the nomination. Justice ∞ 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Objection: This guy also has an upcoming megawad coming up, but why doesn't having over a thousand people who like you make you notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.205.225 (talkcontribs) . 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Objection.

This guy is great. He deserves his own page!He's worked hard on his videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majorarlene (talkcontribs) . 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the "your signature with timestamp" button above the editing window. Grain of Salt 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Answer me this question, how is reviewing WADs as something that is notable? I'm assuming that the anonymous ip that voted for objection is you unless I'm mistaken? To answer that objection, why should having a couple thousand subscribers that like Aquarius as a good reason to keep this page? Katamori is another member of the Doom community that has much more subscribers than this guy, yet he doesn't get a page. Justice ∞ 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)