Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alex Gartenfeld"
(New page: : DELETE this page was vandalized, but even its original content sounded like a hoax. and, even if it werent' a hoax, i don't see how it's of interest to the CU community broadly. i don't ...) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | *'''Delete''' this page was vandalized, but even its original content sounded like a hoax. and, even if it werent' a hoax, i don't see how it's of interest to the CU community broadly. i don't think wcu should become myspace or a place for public displays of onanism. [[User:Foobar|Foobar]] 08:47, 18 January 2008 (EST) | |
| + | *'''Delete''' I've got to say, I like the vandalized version a whole lot better than the original. But ultimately I'm of the opinion that while we shouldn't necessarily decide which individuals qualify as "notable", something personal like this ought to be verified by the individual in question, and not by an antagonistic username. I don't have as much of a problem with self-promotion, as long as people are reasonable about it. [[User:Jiabao|Jiabao]] 09:00, 18 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | *'''Keep''' The guy was featured on [[Campus Characters]], so he's somewhat notable, and obviously he doesn't mind being written about in the public sphere. Also, I don't see anything objectionable about the article in its current form. {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 09:57, 18 January 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | *'''Keep''' for the reasons cited by Reaganaut above. Plus, he's become widely known for witty introductory articles to the Eye, trademark style, etc. But may I say - not that we know the person editing this is the person in question, but if it is, we have no obligation to retain his resume rather than "a number of New York publications," or trust his anonymous word over an article published in B&W, which is why I originally reverted it. [[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 10:18, 18 January 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 18 January 2008
- Delete this page was vandalized, but even its original content sounded like a hoax. and, even if it werent' a hoax, i don't see how it's of interest to the CU community broadly. i don't think wcu should become myspace or a place for public displays of onanism. Foobar 08:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- Delete I've got to say, I like the vandalized version a whole lot better than the original. But ultimately I'm of the opinion that while we shouldn't necessarily decide which individuals qualify as "notable", something personal like this ought to be verified by the individual in question, and not by an antagonistic username. I don't have as much of a problem with self-promotion, as long as people are reasonable about it. Jiabao 09:00, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- Keep The guy was featured on Campus Characters, so he's somewhat notable, and obviously he doesn't mind being written about in the public sphere. Also, I don't see anything objectionable about the article in its current form. − Reaganaut 09:57, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- Keep for the reasons cited by Reaganaut above. Plus, he's become widely known for witty introductory articles to the Eye, trademark style, etc. But may I say - not that we know the person editing this is the person in question, but if it is, we have no obligation to retain his resume rather than "a number of New York publications," or trust his anonymous word over an article published in B&W, which is why I originally reverted it. Pacman 10:18, 18 January 2008 (EST)
