Talk:Red or Dead

Notability
Wales commented that "I added Wikipedia is not a newspaper and especially not a tabloid newspaper and that we… attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something…"

seriously, Michig, its notable to you, but not ecyclopedically. Disagree? Develop the article, include notable information with a link. Wikipedia shouldn't be cluttered with vanity pages and ads filled with unsubstantiated facts. If someone does not have the facts ready, maybe the article is not ready for creation. Vinithehat (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one who can improve the article. If you search on Google News and Google Books you will find sources that can be used to improve it. --Michig (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, youre the one on the Article Rescue Sqaud and the one who believes this to be notable; you do it. I am choosing to improve the article, and Wikipedia, by removing it. That's what the subst:prod is for. Vinithehat (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see, Red or Dead has been the subject of a book pulished by Thames & Hudson, has received significant coverage in other books , , , and plenty of news coverage, including these: , (describing it in 1996 as "one of the UK's leading fashion chains"), , , , , , , , . So it's pretty obvious that Red or Dead is a notable encyclopedic subject. Removing articles on notable subjects simply because they need improving is not going to improve Wikipedia. How about you start doing something to improve the encyclopedia rather than just trying to delete stuff?--Michig (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because a press release disguised as an article is deleted does not mean that a true article cannot be created in its place. Until an actual article is prepared, why should a self serving publicity page be allowed to exist and clutter Wikipedia? You're halfway to completing what you need, you who wants to save the article, which is to actually include facts of note. Not everyone appeciates the historic notability of throwing together a pair of shoes or natty eyeglass frames. Someone who appears to should do it. Until that is accomplished, a pathetic article should not be preserved for its own sake. Vinithehat (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are clearly not prepared to do any work on improving the article yourself, you have two choices: either leave it alone or take it to AFD (where it would definitely be kept). It's up to you. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the AFD yourself you'll find that what is happening here is the process. The article i found was full of content that was unsubstantiated by citations and readlike a press release by a marketing firm run by illiterates. After deleting the self promoting content, there was, in my opinion, nothing left of note. It wasn't nominated without reason. You might oneday realize that the entirety of the Wikipedia community doesn't share your opinion on what is notable. Sometimes to improve something things need to be removed. Vinithehat (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what AFD you are referring to. I don't edit according to my opinions of what is notable, I edit according to what the Wikipedia community agrees is notable. If you stick around on this project and contribute more positively in areas other than deletion, you may come to understand that too. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your experience meeting someone of a differing philosophy. Vinithehat (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)