Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigposters.com (second 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 Viridae Talk 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gigposters.com


Reads like an ad and fails WP:WEB. Contested speedy without reason. I have no idea how the closing admin came to the conclusion that this should be kept last time. MartinDK 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I have no idea how this was allowed to survive either. This time it's bye bye. --Folantin 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You didn't read the closing statement carefully. He said "no consensus; keep". Kimchi.sg 13:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment True, but it was 3-1 and the policy reffered to in the nomination was WP:SPAM which would have qualified it for speedy; consensus or not. MartinDK 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The AfD was back in January 2006 and spam was not a speedy criteria back then. Nominator's "vote" is not counted in the closing result - if he/she didn't want to delete it shouldn't be at AfD anyway. It was a proper legal closure and still would be today. Kimchi.sg 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the phrase. Whatever, it has no impact on the nomination now anyway. MartinDK
 * Delete per nom. Fails to cite sources, appears to be OR.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --SonicChao talk 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - adverts not allowed. Moreschi 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advertisement. Rever e ndG 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Keep for the same reasons it was kept before, rewrite to address the issues brought up by the nom this time. --Myles Long 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Closing administrators are not magic rewriting services, and the issue brought up in the nomination was that the subject does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. To refute that you have to cite sources to demonstrate that it satisfies the WP:WEB criteria, which has the incidental benefit of demonstrating that a rewrite is actually possible.  You didn't cite sources when you wrote the article, you didn't cite sources when the request for sources was made in September 2006, and you haven't cited sources now.  Please cite sources. Uncle G 16:19, 27 November 2006 (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.