User talk:DandoonG

Speedy deletion of GameTalk
A tag has been placed on GameTalk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: GameTalk
On now-deleted Talk:GameTalk, you asked why this article was to be deleted. Well, basically, articles about websites should tell why the sites are so remarkable; there's certain guidelines on these. If you say "it used to be one of the most respected sites on the internet", it'd need some sort of source to back that up (getting featured in a major publication or a website, etc). The article appears to have been deleted before after a discussion (Votes for deletion/GameTalk) and in the current state of the article it didn't bring forth any new reasons why the article was to be kept. If you want to retain the article, you're very welcome to try finding sources that would prove the subject of the article is notable.

Also, most of this particular incarnation of the article seemed to be devoted to, ahem, assertions of non-notability of the site. Plus, I'm not so sure about the style of the article; articles should cover stuff in a neutral manner, and this article seemed to be devoted on original research on the typical operations of the website. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)