User talk:QQ MORE NOOB

QQ more n00b!!!!11 lol

QQ thingy
We disagree. If it's very common, you'll be able to find a reliable source that references the phrase, rendering any article unspeediable. --Dweller 09:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't fall under any of the WP:CSD, so why don't you let it run through the Articles for Deletion instead? QQ MORE NOOB 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't wikilawyer me. If you're unhappy with the deletion, find a reference from a reliable source and I'll happily restore it. --Dweller 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not "wikilawyering". The speedy deletion page says clearly: These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. In this case, my article wasn't eligible for deletion under the "speedy deletion" criteria, so it should go through discussion under the deletion policy. Simple as that. QQ MORE NOOB 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A brand new editor that knows all the rules and how to Wikilawyer. Well let me quote from WP:CSD, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant." QQ MORE NOOB is as the article stated only something found on the internet so it's deleted as non-notable web content. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not web content, it's a phrase. And the criterion is about assertion of significance, while my article said it was a "common phrase". QQ MORE NOOB 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. One could not speak the phrase "QQ" meaningfully- it's painfully obvious that it is web content, whether that contend be a phrase or no. If for no other reason, removing a speedy after final warning rather than hangon is sufficient for a block. This would never survive an Afd, and was independently nominated A7 by numerous independent editors. Let's all stop this nonsense and get on with constructive editing. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 09:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it would "never survive an AFD", then test your theory. Nominate it. It is NOT eligible for deletion under "A7" because it did assert significance, and because it was not "about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast or online game". And of course one could speak the phrase QQ meaningfully. It sounds like "cue cue more, noob". It is commonly used on the internet. See, , etc. QQ MORE NOOB 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I am content that my deletion was both in good faith and correct. Another (very experienced) admin has already reviewed this and agreed with my decision. As you are determined to push the issue, I will post at the admins noticeboard and see if my actions have been incorrect. In which case, I fully apologise. --Dweller 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, post it on their noticeboard. Or even better, restore the article, nominate it for deletion through Articles For Deletion, and see if there is an agreement to delete the article or not. QQ MORE NOOB 09:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard --Dweller 09:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)