Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTZ.com (5th nom)


 * 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 keep. The nomination mirrors the previous one, which was also done by a single-purpose account. No established editors favor keeping the article. Based on evidence, I conclude that the nomination is disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatantly fails notability guidelines per topic importance and significant coverage. Foroto11 10:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — Foroto11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy keep. Article survived AFD less than 2 months ago, and as indicated to right, has also survived multiple previous challenges. 23skidoo 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination by single purpose account. See contribs of submitter. The AFD slap up every month is getting old.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep -- This is a bad faith nomination from sockpuppeteer SPA account that has been cropping up like clockwork. Also note edit history on page, where the nominator has removed some of the cites in order to support the non-notability part of his AfD. Dstumme 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.  -- Gavin Collins 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This SPA has repeatedly vandalized this article with proxy IPs and nominated this article for deletion under bad faith numerous times. SashaNein 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A quick check of the article's reference section clearly indicates that the subject does passes WP:NOTE. One would have to be deliberately ignore the references and the notability guidelines in order to declare this subject non-notable. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per nom. 161.58.189.91 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 161.58.189.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy keep Nominator is using bad faith.  Maybe it's time to put a little protection on this article to at least keep the anon IPs from messing with it.   --Craw-daddy | T | 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Already made a request for page protection (again).  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt Article very clearly fails to establish notability. 77.74.198.212 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — 77.74.198.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speed delete and salt Please end this nonsense once and for all. 74.220.207.103 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and salt per nom. 208.79.200.172 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 24 September 2007 (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.