Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JUPO


 * 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 outside of the discussion by User:Stephen at 21:03, 1 June. The deletion log states "content was: 'db-club" Non-admin closure. -- saberwyn 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JUPO

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think this is notable, I had put db-group on it, but User:TThurston removed it so, I am doing the Afd process Jackaranga 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete- The COI author admits its an ad at the top of the page. What more speedy criteria do you need? No citations? Non-Neutral Point of View? Original Research? Sure, a single edit account took off the db-group, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still get the same outcome. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Much of that was added after, also I did no want to push my point of view, when 2 persons opposed it. Jackaranga 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Object-Since there is absolutely no questionable content on this page. This page does not sell questionable or borderline pornographic material like Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales was once accused of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Train26 (talk • contribs) — D-Train26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Delete as non-notable conflict of interest. DarkAudit 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, removing a prod means send to AfD, removing a speedy tag does not mean an AfD is required. The tag removal was User:TThurston's only edit. A7 tag has been restored. DarkAudit 05:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know this, for the last time, 1. when I nominated on AfD the article was not how it is now, and 2. I did not want to give more weight to my opinion than to the opinion of 2 other users, even if they are very new on wikipedia. Jackaranga 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The process thanks you for that! You did right. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

!ATTENTION!!!! ! header 2 ! header 3 I'm just kidding, but seriously calm down, everyone...it's Wiki. not Judgement Day.Notimeatall 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)notimeatall — Notimeatall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Object- A7 states that it is an unremarkable group, but just because some haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't pertain to some. Wikipedia could by these standards delete anything that they wish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundersticks (talk • contribs)  — Thundersticks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ATTENTION- It always amuses me to see how serious some people take Wiki.  I love the fact that someone put that box up.  {| class="wikitable"
 * You wrote that from your mother's basement!!!!
 * Girls don't talk to you for a reason!!!!
 * row 1, cell 3
 * You take Wiki too seriously!!!!
 * Shouldn't you be playing D&D right now????
 * row 2, cell 3
 * }
 * row 2, cell 3
 * }
 * Is the article written, or is it possible for a version of the article to be written, in the majority or in its entirety from material taken from what Wikipedia considers Reliable Sources, which are independant of the group or its members (to prevent possible the problems associated with a conflict of interest while writing a Wikipedia article)? Do these independant, reliable sources demonstrate how this particular group meets any of the various notability inclusion guidelines (for example the one on groups and organisations or the one on people? Failing that, delete as unable to meet the Wikipedia's verifiability policy. -- saberwyn 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * - I would like to aplogize for comments that I made not long ago to the person that put that box up. The comments made were juvenile and rude.  I'm sorry.Notimeatall 06:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)notimeatall
 * Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in one school day. Seriously, this screms WP:VSCA and there is a demonstrated bias in the article. From the amount of *cruft articles on AfD today, it looks like everyone needs to raise their WikiDefcon levels and stay alert. Thewinchester (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete 10 people meeting every 2-4 weeks to play poker with no real stakes is not notable even if sourced (which this article isn't) Guycalledryan 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam for a non-notable organisation, and one that appears to have a ridiculously high opinion of itself. BTLizard 09:09, 1 June 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.