User talk:Stinkybear57

A tag has been placed on Gangle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. VAcharon (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gangle
A tag has been placed on Gangle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Merenta (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gangle
Gangle, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Gangle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Gangle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Gangle during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ARended Winter 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment regarding Afd on article : Gangle
While you are correct about the policy WP:NOT, all articles must adhere to certain rules in order to be considered by other editors that the inclusion of the content will be beneficial to wikipedia. This article seems to be nothing more than an expansion of a not-so-common neologism, which could not be more than a simple dictionary definition without reliable sources. As I mentioned in the Afd, it seems most of the information has been gathered and expanded from urbandictionary.com, which is not considered a reliable source, and is regarded as original research. Finally, If you wish to make arguement for the keeping of the article, you should do so on the appropriate page, as comments left on user talk pages will not be seen by the closing admin. ARended Winter 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My physical stature is irrelevant to conversation. Original research is never useful in an encyclopaedia as anyone looking for research material may come across such content and believe it is fact.  This is also the reason articles require sources.  ARended Winter 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note
Please do not submit random useless crap to Wikipedia. No matter how funny you think it is, no one will ever see it except the administrator who deletes it, so you've wasted your own time as well.

If you still need to be funny, you might want to check out Uncyclopedia instead. Thank you. DS (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)