Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Spots

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Should've been done on sight, not listed here. Dan100 (Talk) 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun_Spots

This is a satire of advertising copy Jkelly 22:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete This is db-nonsense material.--Hurricane111 22:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not "db-nonsense material," actually; see WP:PN.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  22:50:07, 2005-09-08 (UTC) NB. I would prefer Splash's suggestion below; del and recreate as a redirect to Sunspot—encephalonέγκέφαλος  07:46:31, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
  • You make sense of it then because I can't. Tagged for speedy delete. Pilatus 23:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hello Pilatus. I can certainly understand your view. However, it's often a good idea to be careful using the speedy tag, because inappropriately SD'd articles consume a lot of our resources (and create unnecessary conflict) when they turn up at VfU. According to WP:PN, there are only 2 types of content that meet the patent nonsense criteria: gibberish (eg. the article is "djkjd090u8]r{ssdklsm993wq"), or the sentences are so incomprehensible no intelligent person can be expected to understand any of it. The text here is neither— it is quite intelligible as an ad of some sort, or a hoax (both of which are proscribed by WP:PN). I hope you don't mind that I have removed the tag? Very kind regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  07:46:31, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Delete advert/spam/nn product. MCB 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Either poor advertising or a hoax. - Jpo 23:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Quite funny, but not appropriate for this site.Kiwidude 23:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot, of course. Now we have to wait five days to get rid of a badly written ad... or ad parody... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• (via edit conflict) Certainly the content needs to go, but what's wrong with a redirect to sunspot? —Cryptic (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well it seems three of us had the same idea at the same time! redirect. Dunc|☺ 23:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot. — Nowhither 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot, although I'd be inclined to delete the article first, and then recreate as redirect. -Splash 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sunspot. – AxSkov (☏) 08:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Odd, I read this and thought "I've heard of those somewhere", but it seems I'm wrong, as I can't find any trace. There does seem to be a thing called Sun Spots[TM] which is basically a dark film you stick on your spectacles. Redirect this lot to Sunspots per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, me too. Some product that was introduced with a burst of publicity

and, uh, faded into the sunset, I suppose. Could it be these sunburn warning sensors? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense (obviously some child's idea of a joke)---CH (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.