Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSAMC


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NSAMC
Strong delete. Should be speedied, but User:Ansell keeps removing the tag. This is an internet forum with 66 registered members making unsourced claims of being the "first spam forum" online. Fabricationary 08:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I was removing the tag because the page claims to be "one of the first spam forums ever created" and it claims to be a "very important spam forums because it gathered all of the spam forum icons and leaders (or main-members) from other spam forums". These are notability statements, and as such cannot be judged by the speedy criteria. They deserve a discussion at least. Ans e ll  08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably wiser to see if the forum is notable before just believing what it says? Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy tags are only for sites which do not need any sort of external referencing to figure out whether to delete or not. I suggested that the original tagger put a Prod on instead but they chose this method instead. It was a case of misunderstanding the speedy criteria. Also, I put my statement down as a comment, not as anything else. Ans e ll  09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsubstantiated statements, tons of redundant redlinks, and poorly written. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WP:NFT & total unmitigated nonsene. Frankly this nonsense should be speedied and blocked against recreation after the deleted tags farago. Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we make up a sufficiently objective criteria for what is Bollocks. And how does your NFT (aka, Not for Things made up in school one day) reference work here? Ans e ll  09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, because it's very unlikely that we'll ever find any secondary sources to write an article about a small site like this. I don't agree that it should have been speedied though, I think the boundaries of the speedy deletion criteria shouldn't be stretched or moved like this - that's why we have AfD and PROD. --JoanneB 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability and no excuse or reason for advertising such a small forum on Wiki. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the article asserts notability and is worth a discussion, but overall it's not notable by objective standards. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 10 July 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.