Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay icon (2nd nomination)


 * 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 And please do not procedurally list incomplete afds where no one is actually making a case for deletion. -Docg 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon (2nd Nomination)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

AfD nominated by Knowpedia. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. Previous AfD here. Tevildo 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article has been substantially revised since deletion nomination. Tevildo 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The entire article is referenced, and meets WP:NN. If you have a reason for nominating it, Tevildo, please state it; otherwise I see this as just a nonsense motion. And for the record, it was already revised before you slapped the deletion tag on it. See the diff here Jeffpw 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick note on what's happened here. Knowpedia put a CSD tag on the article at 0542 - this was removed.  S/he then nominated it for AfD by adding it to the log page at 0815, but did not add the AfD tag to the article - I assumed that this was an oversight.  All I did was to add the AfD tag to the article that s/he neglected to add - I have absolutely no opinion (as yet) on whether the article should be deleted, and completed the AfD on a procedural basis.  The revisions to the article took place after it was added to the log. Tevildo 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep no reason given, no reason to bother with this debate. The article is fine. Koweja 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Distinctly notable concept and Jeff's revision has shown how encyclopedic and well verified it can be.Agne 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is no reason or justification whatsoever.  I see no reason for deletion. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No reason or justification given for nomination; no reason for deletion. Parammon 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating keep. Well done article and no reason to delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 15 January 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.