User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Oct

I think the article is not notable at all --ChristianandJericho 09:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't remove tags of speedy deletion, Burrn! is not notable and I looked in your past record and you've been blocked as many times as me, also if you take it WP:ANI then so will I --ChristianandJericho 09:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

While viewing this little spat from afar, I've decided to put in my 2 cents. I've put in a Keep for this article because you cannot just up and say an article is just "not notable", especially without giving a reason. Also, if you want to talk about blocks, Chris was just temporarily blocked for no more than 2 days at most for issues regarding an RFA and not disruptive behavior on his part, which is more than you can say about yourself. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 08:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

...and about your coment here you should already know that it makes no difference how long you've been around, if your "article" is in articlespace, and does not meet criteria to to keep from the very start, it can be tagged/deleted immediately. If you want time to create a stub with no references for example, you use a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We appear to have an issue here that really needs to be debated more widely. In my opinion, it is not acceptable for any article (excepting obvious vandalism/libel etc) to be nommed for deletion only 15 minutes after its creation. It would certainly be acceptable to place an 'unref' tag on a new article after allowing a decent interval (say, a few hours), and subsequently to nom it for deletion if no references are provided, but an instant nom for deletion is guaranteed to deter new editors. I've been around here long enough to know how to stand up for myself, but a new editor would just walk away and probably never come back. If this sort of practice is standard among new page patrollers, it needs to be stopped immediately. It's little more than licensed bullying. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. As far as "does not meet criteria to to keep from the very start", this article did meet the criteria to keep from the start, and be stubbed until it can expand. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 05:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. I think it's notable too. I found some sources about it in Bravewords and Blabbermouth.net, but i dont think that they are enough to create it (I dont want to start a discussion with other users about its notability). T.R.Elven (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)