Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dd05

Dd05
promo for "Stoney Creek High School's 4th Annual Cultural Show", and thus quite unencyclopedic. Please note however, "There will be free food". Michael Ward 02:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete ~ mlk &#9993; &#9836;  02:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
 * Delete, but I can be swayed by offering free food that does not require transatlantic travel.  --fvw *  03:28, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * If they feel like sending free food transpacific... delete anyway, nn. Alphax (talk) 03:41, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete, spam ad (one reason why high schools shouldn't be computer-equipped... heh heh, just kidding). Wyss 22:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we all know this is an obvious delete. But spam is simply not a CSD criterion at the moment, though maybe it should be.  Or maybe we should enact the managed deletion track.  But since we haven't yet, I don't see the harm in letting the process run its course here. Michael Ward 22:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Spam is included in the definition of vandalism. Wyss 04:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. But Vandalism defines spam as "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion."  This article does not consist of an innappropriate external link, nor does it even have an external link.  Then in Wikipedia:Spam we find "Advertisements posted on Wikipedia should be dealt with by listing them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion".  So, I don't really think this article is intended to be covered by the vandalism clause.  Maybe I'm wrong.
 * Now, this is an obvious delete. But I can imagine other articles that are a bit less rinky-dink but still have a "promo" feel.  I can imagine some that maybe shouldn't be deleted, but just de-hyped a bit.  It may be that a dozen admins look at an article like that, but only one thinks it's a speedy.  Poof! it's gone.  Everyone makes errors in judgement now and then.  I've removed a fair number of obviously incorrect speedy tags in the past, ones where the articles survived vfd.  That's why I'm being a bit of a stickler for a strict interpretation of policy here.  Maybe with a tag-and-bag speedy it would be less of an issue.  Anyway, I see your point about vandalism, but I do think it's stretching the definition a bit. Michael Ward 04:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was rather burned out on the Sollog wars that day. This isn't spam, vandalism, or bad-faith, just a hopeless ad. Wyss 04:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; RJH 19:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete How long does it take before there's a consensus?