Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/525R.com


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   speedy delete. G11'd by me, by accident because I didn't read the tags. But the discussion is moot now. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

525R.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Promotional and poorly written article about a non-notable website. Repeatedly recreated and finally salted at 525r.com and now here. Speedy has been declined due to assertion of notability. I am not convinced that being the world's 2 millionth most popular website is really a claim to notability and I propose that we delete and salt this article, speedily if at all possible. DanielRigal (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I would like a speedy, but I can see where they assert some notability. Defiantly not notable.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance of a speedy as spam? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You could very well try. It is obvious that the creator wishes to be destructive, as he is removing the afd tag repeatedly and is about to get himself blocked. We could probably try a tag for spam/vandalism.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Deletion – No GNEWS to support article.  ttonyb1  (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. Like a dope I didn't check the tags or the history before doing so.  Please read the deletion policy, if an article is at AfD, don't speedy it.  Let the AfD conclude.  This may take more time but it will result in a community decision which can be enforced via CSD-G4.  Also, don't template new articles to death.  If there really are fixable problems with the article, then use Article issues.  If an article is going to get deleted anyway regardless of superficial edits, then don't mark that it has copy-edit problems. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.