Talk:Pepsi: Live for Now/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
But it's on camera!
So how is that not reliable. I see it with my own eyes! St. claires fire (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
article lacks importance and informational relevance or significance in history, , the article itself is a worthy candidate to be deleted
The existence of this article lacks importance and informational relevance or significance in history, not even television, the article itself is a worthy candidate to be deleted and eliminated due to the rhetoric and wording with which it is written only denotes the bad intentions of the creator, since the objective of this article is to defame and harm the public figure KENDALL JENNER. The existence of the article is absurd, nor the constant references or WIKI-PROJECTS attributed to it can remove the bias of defamation and online vandalism. The mere fact that this PEPSI article is associated with links with another Wikipedia article dedicated to Kendall Jenner shows the continues slandered of the public figure Kendall Jenner for something that he had no control or decision is online vandalism and gratuitous defamation. Recently I have been reviewing the wording of this article and it is surprising the lack of objectivity and malicious intentions of some Wikipedia users especially when it comes to controversies and conflicts such as the Pepsi, of which Kendall Jenner is obviously not the ideologist, Some Wikipedia users feel that they download their hatred and personal opinions regarding public figures that they do not like, Wikipedia is not a place to download hatred, of course if a controversy involves a public figure, you can write about it in Wikipedia, but always from an objective point of view,
Requested move 21 December 2021
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the Pepsi ad is a clear primary topic. The disambiguation page is unnecessary and will be deleted. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
– Ever since the Pepsi ad aired, it has seen 50x the number of pageviews than Live for Now! did. Also per WP:DIFFPUNCT, the "(Pepsi)" parenthetical is not necessary. The exclamation point should be enough to disambiguate between the commercial and the album. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 16:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- If this move occurs, there's no need for a disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. The hatnote at the top of the Pepsi advert page will suffice. — AjaxSmack 16:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- No opinion on the actual RM, but should be obvious to everyone that that album sub-stub is not in the Airplane! category so have moved to to !(album) per WP:CRITERIA, if anyone seriously objects then move it back. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support The album fails WP:NALBUM and as such I've boldly blanked and redirected it to the band article. The Pepsi ad is the only notable topic. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Article title
I used "Pepsi" to disambiguate the article from Live for Now! and the redirect Live for Now, which I converted to a disambiguation page. But I wonder if Live for Now (commercial) or Live for Now Moments Anthem might be a better title for disambiguation purposes? Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)