Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidpa


 * 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. Keeper   76  20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fidpa

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

User:Nosleep wrote in the speedy description: "A pretty clear advertisement by its content and by the creator, User:FIDPA. Were I to dig, I'd probably find a copyvio as well." Harr o 5 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as FIDPA itself does seem to have gained some attention in the poker-playing world (via ghits), but completely gut the ad-article. Appears to be only partially taken from elsewhere (or cobbled together from many parts, e.g. ) but is in completely hopeless shape. Replace it with a one-line definition and a link to the main site and see if it grows. JJL (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I say delete, but why was the speedy inappropriate? Don't fall asleep  zzzzzz 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A Google search for FIDPA turns up a lot of results from poker-related websites. Although the content of this article is awful, there may be someone who can turn out an appropriate stub if this 'rules system' is actually notable. Harr o 5 09:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look up FIDPA on the internet and in the poker industry, you will se that it is an important organization. It is not meant to be an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has been revised...if anyone can help, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the messages are? sorry new to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by FIDPA (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. Purely promotional, complete with first-person mission statement, laden with puffery throughout, and lacking any sources. Contributor is encouraged to read the Conflict of interest guideline. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as nn self-promo; will be blocking creator soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of references. Probably a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as advertisement & very likely copyvio. Renata (talk) 13:48, 7 September 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.