Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conti Contact


 * 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Conti Contact

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete unsourced article about nn product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly fails to establish notability, or anything elseBeeblbrox (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability, orphaned, context - what not, -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. There are enough crappy articles that should have been deleted quite some time ago that it seems silly to be so aggressive deleting new stubs.  They should be given a chance to grow.  But fine, go ahead, I don't have anything invested in it really.  I guess I'll do less starting of stubs and more waiting till I have real time to invest in an article (which will of course cut down on my contributions quite a bit).  As far as notability, it is a well established product line, I guess, but I'm no expert.  It is a chilling effect, by the way to require a lot of expertise and time investment before one can start an article.  One need not be an expert to recognize the need for an article and start a stub, and it encourages readers to contribute.  There are a lot more people out there who are willing to edit something they feel is wrong or incomplete than are willing to start a stub (and put up with this kind of crap) --Treekids (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment You are right, there is an incredible backlog of articles that need help/deletion, and we can keep that list down by stopping new non-notable articles. However, you don't need a lot of expertise, just a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidlines. There are hundreds of different sizes and types of tires, and nothing in this stub to indicate why this particular variety is notable. Please don't take it so personally, it is not personal at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (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.