User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/June

Categories
Hmm, I'm not sure if there's a guideline on it; however, the common practice I've seen is to use alphabetical order since it's the most universally applicable. ShadowHalo 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of LA Temptation
I deleted the notability tag on Los Angeles Temptation intentionally, since the referenced articles seemed to me to establish notability. I think, if there is an issue with the notability of the Lingerie Bowl and/or Lingerie Football League, those should be tagged for notability. Or the individual team articles could be proposed for merger with the Bowl or League articles. I'm not sure what other notability you may have in mind. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, something that demonstrates the "team" and the "league" aren't just tools of a marketing stunt or soft-porn gigs for struggling models and C-list actresses. -- Mikeblas 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ... unless it's a notable stunt or gig. Not everything that calls itself a team has to be a competitive sports team to be notable, right? -- JHunterJ 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. So what shows it's a notable stunt or gig? Should we have articles for every marketing scheme? -- Mikeblas 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The references included already show that it's a notable something IMO; that's why I removed the tag. Not every marketing scheme will get coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Observer, etc. -- JHunterJ 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)