Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducky Wucky


 * 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 deleted CSD G11, blatant advertising however, to stem any recreation, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ducky Wucky

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

Subject is not notable, article contains a lot of advertisement of non-notable subjects, article is unsourced, maybe even a hoax. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete WP:CBALL, WP:BALLS, WP:MADEUP--take your pick. It's horribly written to boot, and the author is a vandal. Blueboy96 16:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboy, I'm surprised to see such a bad WP:BITE violation from such an experienced user. It seems to be the main comment that the poster objects to as well. I take it you misread something and spoke (typed) too hastily. Could you possibly try and patch things up with the user in question? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I just saw that an article with the same name had been speedied once before. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ADVERT for a NN product. Possibly a made up hoax. Recreation of previously speedy deleted material. also I suggest some salt on this to prevent recreation. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * G4 doesn't apply when the previous article has been speedied, but as I mentioned earlier this could easily be WP:NFT-able. Blueboy96 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by a message on the creator's talk page dated 26 June. And I never said that this was a speedy, just a delete and a salt for prevention of further creation as the user had done so before. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The game is for sale on ebay, but that's the only non-wiki ghit, including gnews. WP:COI issues lead me to believe this is an advert, and probably eligible for a G11 speedy.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per... well, all of the above... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:HOAX, WP:POINT, WP:N, WP:COATRACK, WP:SNOW, WP:CBALL, and WP:V. Also an obivous attempt at vandalsim. It deserves to be deleteed. Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per Smith Jones. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps should have been speedied as spam. The topic certainly not notable in any way. S. Dean Jameson 21:09, 6 July 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.