Talk:Guardian Unlimited Talk

As there was no discussion page, I have taken it upon myself to delete the POV query. WHoever inserted it needs to explain what the problem uis, otherwise it is simply vandalism. I have changed the relevant section, anyway.85.182.68.174 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous problems

I've placed several concern tags with this article. First, it seems largely to consist of original research-basically that someone has read the forum and interpreted it. This is not acceptable, interpretations must be from a reliable secondary source, none of which is provided (hence, the primary sources only tag). Finally, the article is not written whatsoever in a neutral tone due to the problems above, and appears to be more a "dueling POV" article than an NPOV one. Realistically, it probably needs either deletion or, if secondary sources are available to show notability, a complete stubbing and rewrite. Seraphimblade 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Problems

There are no secondary sources that can be quoted to document the ephemera of web talkboards like GUT, and yet they are a part of our universe that we should document. The write-up is an accurate distillation and reflection of the key cultural phenomenon that is GUT. It also contains a great deal more character than most of the insipid LCD crap that Wikipedia generally stands for. As such it fulfils all the Wikipaedia requirements for "blah, blah, blah" etc. Deletion would be a travesty greater than the McCarthyite horsetrials to the power of Tiananmen Square mascara and cover up stick.YusufAlBinVeryNaughty 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember: Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, and original research is prohibited. All of those lists of cultural elements could be included in a web directory but that is not the nature of Wikipedia.--158.130.12.14 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information has to start somewhere. Why not here? Whilst it doesn't represent original research, those putting on information are probably closest to the source and therefore qualfy as experts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.209.216.245 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Qualification for Notability

I would further point out that one of the key criteria for notability is that the "[...] content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." As this content is part of the Guardian newspaper website, and therfore distributed through an online newspaper, then it qualifies for notability through this criterion.

But as far as I can tell the actual content on the bulletin boards isn't distributed through the guardian newspaper, merely affilated with it. I think this page should be either merged or redirected to The Guardian, with a small section in that article on it.--158.130.12.14 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have in my hand a piece of paper

The GUT article on Wikipedia is an longstanding Outpost, Colony and Embassy of GUT itself. Attempts to interfere with the sovereign non-neutrality (and or existence) of this glorious, guano-covered island will result in... well... very bad stuff indeed.

--HumanBoeing 11:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd

Absurd, I tell you! Plain bonkers! And I've a good mind to do something about it. YusufAlBinVeryNaughty 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Merge with "Guardian Unlimited" article

A slimmed down (and more factual) version of this entry would make a potentially useful subsection to the Guardian Unlimited article. In its current form, the article is just gossip, and outdated gossip at that. --Jeremiah4-22 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]