Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving Tips

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Tips

I'm sure it's really useful, but WP:NOT a how-to guide. Would Wikibooks want this? Mithent 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Bobby1011 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE obvious copyvio the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipeida is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOT a how-to. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is now eHow, also removing the db-template as this article is going to be deleted anyway. -Obli (Talk)^? 13:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete, WP:NOT a How-To guide. JIP | Talk 13:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Looking at the external link mentioned in the article, they post a link right back to the article: "In order to see for yourself if the depth and completeness of our instruction is worth a $10 subscription you may wish to review our article on the subject at Wikipedia." — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. This is really infuriating. This is a clear and blatant case of abusing Wikipedia for commercial gain. It's OK when people link to Wikipedia articles as a neutral, objective reference, but a company writing an advertisement on Wikipedia and then linking to it from its own website makes me angry. They already have a website, they can write anything they want there, and advertise themselves as much as they want. What's stopping them from putting the article text on their own bloody website? Or haven't they yet figured out how to make links point at the same website? Are they simply trying to show that they can PWN! Wikipedia if they so choose? JIP | Talk 19:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Kimchi.sg's new evidence. This is advertising for the service, especially if they are linking back to the article for the reason for advertising. Also Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, as mentioned by several others (including the nomination). From all this, I say: Wikibooks will probably request this page's deletion too. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (how-to guide) and per Kimchi.sg. Of course, the article does teach us that to move a window air conditioner one must first remove it from the window, which is surely valuable. Joe 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, sneaky advertising. ProhibitOnions 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Triage 22:00, 20 March 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.