Talk:Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch

article should be deleted

It seems to me this article should be deleted, per WP:NB. Would there be any reason why I should not nominate it for deletion? Qqqqqq 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per AfD protocols articles should be improved through regular editing before any deletion process is undertaken. Benjiboi 09:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no one was paying this article any attention before. The improvements in the past day or two wouldn't have happened otherwise. Qqqqqq 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. WP has thousands of articles that need improving and abusing the AfD process, to me, is one of the worse ways to bring enlightened and inspired editing to an article that needs attention. In the end I hope future editors will be able to cobble together some of what I did to make it into a decent article but my goal was to keep it from getting deleted and I hope I accomplished at least that. Benjiboi 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought the article should have been deleted when I nominated it. I meant that that it was improved instead was a good consequence. Qqqqqq 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On WP I'm definitely more in the creationist camp vs. the deletionist side of things. If you see me calling for deletion there is something mighty wrong indeed! Benjiboi 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns

While I'm sure that this is a thoughtful and useful book, it doesn't appear to me to satisfy the notability guidelines for articles about books. My personal feeling is that I would like to see it kept, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it qualifies as a notable book, and furthermore it does have a bit of a promotional tone. I wanted to post here to invite discussion before going elsewhere. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 20:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/polisci/pcurrah/ids70100.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blackstudies.ucsb.edu/student_info/syllabus/133_syllabus_f05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oberlin.edu/CAS/Syllabus/2006-2007/CAS%20412%20spring%2007%20syllabus.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)