Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid Your Next Traffic Ticket


 * 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. Essay. The speedy criterion was WP:IAR yandman  21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Avoid Your Next Traffic Ticket

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

Couldn't find a proper Speedy Delete criteria to list this under, so I'm bringing it here. Unsourced, original research, WP:NOTMANUAL, not encyclopedic, etc. Delete.   SIS   16:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I think the "No context" criterion applies here: Speedy_Delete.  Cazort (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No context? There's plenty of context, I think. But it's basically an essay.   SIS   16:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTMANUAL. Wikipedia is not a manual. For that, try WikiHow. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic style, OR, and belongs to WikiHow.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So that would be transwiki right? Except I don't think this is free content. Nerfari (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We do not maintain transwikification queues for non-Foundation wikis, and even if we did, we wouldn't for WikiHow, ironically because this is free content, and WikiHow is not.  WikiHow uses a non-free copyright licence ("-NC"), to which free content licenced under the GFDL is not transferrable. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just delete then please. Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Useful info, but not encyclopaedic. The LHD bias is not reason to delete, but if Keep is achieved should be addressed. In a lot of the world, the left lane is the slow one... Peridon (talk)
 * Speedy Delete Spam advertising a website. Edward321 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The website was added by Nerfari, not by the article's author. I think Nerfari is suggesting that the page is a copyright violation. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that might be the case. Nerfari (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is unencyclopedic and either original research or a copyright violation. If this is a copyright violation, then speedy delete. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 24 February 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.