| Revision as of 18:08, 6 September 2015 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Notable?: request conformance with article talk page guidelines from User:Springee← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:25, 6 September 2015 edit undoSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,468 edits →Notable?Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Recently questionable edits have been made by HughD to other articles in what appears to be an attempt to make other articles cite this one. That sort of questionable editing does not address the ] issues associated with this article. It is not at all clear that there is any reason to have a stand alone article on one of the many statements made about the Obama campaign and presidency. These questions should be discussed on the talk page. ] (]) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | Recently questionable edits have been made by HughD to other articles in what appears to be an attempt to make other articles cite this one. That sort of questionable editing does not address the ] issues associated with this article. It is not at all clear that there is any reason to have a stand alone article on one of the many statements made about the Obama campaign and presidency. These questions should be discussed on the talk page. ] (]) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Please learn to focus on content and depersonalize your comments concerning article content on article talk pages. The appropriate forum for concerns regarding article content is the talk page of the article of concern. Thank you. ] (]) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | :Please learn to focus on content and depersonalize your comments concerning article content on article talk pages. The appropriate forum for concerns regarding article content is the talk page of the article of concern. Thank you. ] (]) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::Then perhaps you can start by justifying why this topic is notable. Recently {{u|Ricky81682}} mentioned your edits to the talk page of ] as not helpful. I was hoping we could have a better conversation here since you moved the questionable meme topic here. So let's hit on the issues, why should this topic exist at all? Why if it's notable, and I'm not sure it is, shouldn't it be part of some other topic. You are the prime editor of the topic. I would hope you would be willing to engage on the talk of the article. | |||
| ::So with that said, please justify why this topic is notable and should be stand alone. For that mater is "meme" even a correct description in this case? ] (]) 18:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:25, 6 September 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chicago-style politics (meme) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Chicago Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Notable?
Is this topic actually notable enough to exist? Shouldn't this be part of a larger topic talking about political attacks on Obama? Perhaps part of the 2008 and/or 2012 election pages? Springee (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The notability of this article is in question. Keeping it as a stand alone article is highly questionable. Barring other suggestions, on or around Sept 10th I will post it to WP:AFD. Springee (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Recently questionable edits have been made by HughD to other articles in what appears to be an attempt to make other articles cite this one. That sort of questionable editing does not address the WP:NOTE issues associated with this article. It is not at all clear that there is any reason to have a stand alone article on one of the many statements made about the Obama campaign and presidency. These questions should be discussed on the talk page. Springee (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please learn to focus on content and depersonalize your comments concerning article content on article talk pages. The appropriate forum for concerns regarding article content is the talk page of the article of concern. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you can start by justifying why this topic is notable. Recently Ricky81682 mentioned your edits to the talk page of Chicago-style_politics as not helpful. I was hoping we could have a better conversation here since you moved the questionable meme topic here. So let's hit on the issues, why should this topic exist at all? Why if it's notable, and I'm not sure it is, shouldn't it be part of some other topic. You are the prime editor of the topic. I would hope you would be willing to engage on the talk of the article.
- So with that said, please justify why this topic is notable and should be stand alone. For that mater is "meme" even a correct description in this case? Springee (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)