Talk:Woodyjones

is this page really nesscery? it dosent even give a reason why the pirate's noteworthy.It's dose appear that this page was made by the player and he dident no that you need to give reaon why they are notworthy and the layout etc.however i could be wrong.
 * The article needs a cleanup, aye. But, pirates no longer need to be noteworthy to have their own page >.> They just need to exist... --Sagacious (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

I thought that any pirate could have a for USER: page but to have an ofical page you still needed to be notworthy.
 * It was previously like that, but the policy was changed around a month ago. --Sagacious (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2006 (PDT)

Quoting the policy: "The YPPedia is an encyclopedic work. It is not a directory of pirates across the oceans. That said, any pirate may have a page about him or her. Pirate pages must meet the same basic criteria as all other pages. They must be encyclopedic. They must be written in the third person. They must be factual. They must use proper spelling and grammar. Pages that fail to meet these criteria may still be proposed for deletion and, after a suitable discussion period, may be deleted if the problems persist.

...This page seems quite subjective, and I'm not sure what encyclopedic information it adds. Could someone clarify how this qualifies as a pirate page under this policy, using this as a test case for me to understand it better?

-Pauling
 * I would tend to agree that this is, at very least, barely encyclopedic, and the lack of effort on the part of the author to tighten up the spelling, grammar, relevance, and third-person issues leads me to suggest it get proposed for deletion. --Ponytailguy 15:51, 3 September 2006 (PDT)
 * Done. --Barrister 00:42, 4 September 2006 (PDT)


 * Support deletion. --Featherfin 06:39, 10 September 2006 (PDT)
 * Ditto --Angelbeaver (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2006 (PDT)