User talk:155blue/Archives/2021/01

yes

CSD nominations
These are some questionable mass CSD nominations. Can you hold off for now, and we can discuss in more detail? —  The Earwig   talk 06:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I could, though I believe it's the same sort of issue that is overriding many of them. Many don't appear to be notable and fail to reference sources outside of Notre Dame, rendering them something akin to blatant advertising. Some of them had also been deleted/changed to redirects in the past, which is concerning. 155blue (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. CSD G11 ("Blatant advertising") means the article text itself is unambiguously promotional, see for example Identifying blatant advertising or WP:FIELD. Poor sourcing or questionable notability does not mean something is advertising. AFD or PROD is the way to go for that. It's also usually not a great idea to CSD articles that have been stable for a long time (several years), because that's a sign that deletion might be controversial and should use some other process allowing for community review. I haven't looked into these articles carefully, but a cursory review indicates you might be right about lacking notability. —  The Earwig   talk 07:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, speedy deletion did not seem to clearly apply in these cases. A deletion discussion might end in everything being merged into University of Notre Dame residence halls again, but it's quite unlikely the main article would end up being deleted since it has already survived two deletion discussions . Might be worth considering a group nomination for these individual residency halls at WP:AFD. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)