User talk:Spiderone/Archive 89
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Spiderone. 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. |
| Archive 85 | ← | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | → | Archive 95 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Such a shame
You apply subjective archaic principles that defy logic or understanding in today's society and directly contradict Wikipedia's purpose for existence. Women's sports can not be treated equal to men's until the wrongs of the past have been corrected and therefore require special observance. Women's sports have been attacked incessantly since World War I when there was a fear that women's sports would overtake men's sports in popularity. It's clearly seen in the decisions of the FA in regards to football. They were blatantly suppressed and you have continued that process even though the articles pointed out clearly met WP:GNG, in that they had reliable and verifiable sources that clearly defined the subjects the teams in question and were able to be visible to a world population, which is the overall guiding principle of Wikipedia and can not be superseded by any other guidelines. It hurts my heart that you choose to use this platform to further a biased agenda. I want you to know that I will fight this at every turn in the destructive behavior that you and others here further because women will no longer stand by and allow our history, our topics and our lives to be disregarded and subjected to the old principles of irrelevance that men have reduced them to in the past. This is at best ignorance of the intent of the Notability guidelines and at worst a deep seeded indifference to women's sports and attempt to suppress it's importance and further the agenda of a "man's world". Good day to you. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was a discussion that multiple people participated in. Why am I being singled out here? Spiderone 15:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You were the nominator and have been in many articles that I suspect were dubiously deleted for the same reasons. An editor should not use subjective opinion to determine if an article is worthy of inclusion and where an editor believes that one guideline may determine an article unworthy that editor must always revert to all superseding guidelines to make that judgement prior to introduction of an article for deletion. The article clearly passes WP:GNG and all other guidelines are submissive to this as primary. This article and all others recently deleted by the same cabal of editors will be brought up before a deletion review and that judgement will determine the fate of these and other articles like it.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. Spiderone 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what WP:NSEASON says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, please submit it for Wikipedia:Deletion review Spiderone 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- It was met. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the sources were reliable and verifiable publications in the UK. We can also access the publications in the US which means it is international so that covers the world-wide angle. The sourced articles significantly mentioned the subject of the article so that shoots so many holes in your biased opinion that even Swiss cheese would be proud. Also, "independent of the subject" means it can't be a promotional piece of the team by a publication owned or directed by the team (self-published), which it wasn't. Go ahead and try to justify your bias against women's sports articles if you want but you are wrong about this article and others. I will also point out that your friends who follow you around voting with you to indiscriminately delete these articles keep using the word "fully" in front of "professional" but that's not what WP:NSEASON says. It says "Top Professional". The articles and their sources, before you and your little frat boy group of haters voted to delete them, clearly stated the Belle's played in the top women's league. No where does that guideline give any other describing factor than "Top Professional", so they met that too. Semi-Professional only had to do with how they were paid, not their athletic ability or relevance as a professional team, whether its in your mind or anywhere else.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- GNG literally starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." On all 3 articles on the Doncaster Belles that was simply not met. Spiderone 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You were the nominator and have been in many articles that I suspect were dubiously deleted for the same reasons. An editor should not use subjective opinion to determine if an article is worthy of inclusion and where an editor believes that one guideline may determine an article unworthy that editor must always revert to all superseding guidelines to make that judgement prior to introduction of an article for deletion. The article clearly passes WP:GNG and all other guidelines are submissive to this as primary. This article and all others recently deleted by the same cabal of editors will be brought up before a deletion review and that judgement will determine the fate of these and other articles like it.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Notable or not?
Hey...
I was browsing through a list of Malaysian television networks yesterday, one thing led to another and i stumbled upon this article. It is basically a summary of the series' telecast in India; the various networks it has aired on, titles of the various corresponding dubbed movies etc. Don't think that the article fails NTV or GNG because I doubt they were ever established in the first place. I get it that the show is popular in the country but by that logic Game of Thrones is popular worldwide. The next thing you know articles are popping up left and right about GOT's broadcast history in each country it has aired in and articles like this one will end up becoming excellent OTHERSTUFFEXISTS weapons. I was contemplating putting it up for deletion but then reckoned that it would be better to get a second opinion first from someone who has established Afd experience and a good understanding of all the related content policies because the articles does have 10 refs (even though one is literally titles Marketing and Advertisement) and very strong traffic (which is why a redirect would be useless as one or the other fan of the show will end up removing it). According to me the article is plumbing new depths of banality, which is exactly why I would really appreciate your input on the matter as even if that's not the case and the article is truly notable, it is still a good case study/reference point for me for the future. Regards, TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheRedDomitor: definitely not worth its own article. The table is definitely a violation of WP:NOTDIR or another policy under WP:NOT. The 'history' section is well sourced but is already covered well in the main Doraemon article. I would definitely AfD it. Please notify me if you do as I would definitely like to make a comment or two. Spiderone 07:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Spiderone: That's what I thought too. Thanks for your input. Will put it up for del in a little while. Also, cus you are a !voter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Wealth 2020 I should inform you that some new info has come to light at about the status quo of the review at hand. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Notability
@Spiderone: hey what is your problem with articles created by me??? what do you want to do?? In James Schumacher article there are a secondary sourced placed, what do you want other???Almgerdeu (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)