Talk:Travel CUTS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is my first article it needs some serious clean up as well references and citations and all that fun stuffDr sean chronic RSX 06:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed prod

• For whatever reason, Ardenn notified me that he was going to {{prod}} this article. I wasn't the original editor, I just added the {{cleanup}} tag and a category. That said, this article may or may not be encyclopedic, but the reason given, "vanity" mystified me. It isn't apparent on the face of it what the vanity is. I suspect that this entry certainly satisfies WP:CORP, so on that basis the article should stay. If there is a better reason, it should go to AfD. Agent 86 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am the Original author/editor I removed it again after RVDr sean chronic RSX 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was listed on AFD. Removal of the AFD tag is vandalizm. Ardenn 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem with me?Dr sean chronic RSX 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of AfD template

Someone removed the AfD template. If this is removed again then it will be treated as vandalism. This template must remain until the AfD is settled. BlueValour 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• As has been determined, Dr sean chronic RSX removed it (pretty much by his own admission). However, assuming good faith, it appears that the good doctor was a victim of timing. Ardenn notified people who previously edited this article that he had added the {{prod}} tag and invited editors to remove it if there was reason. Ardenn also advised that he'd list it for AfD if the prod was removed. I removed the prod (as explained above), but barely had typed out my reasons for removal when I noticed the AfD template had been added. It was fast. Dr. RSX edited the page near about that time. Given the speed at which everything happened, and from Dr. RSX's edit summary, my conclusion is that he removed the AfD template thinking it was the prod template (which he had been invited to do). I don't condone vandalism, but this appears to be a bit of unfortunate timing. Let's remember to go gentle on the new editors. (BTW, I've already cautioned RSX about the changes he made to his talk page. I think by now he has been sufficiently warned on all fronts, so any further transgressions won't be considered so generously) Agent 86 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)