Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JohnsAuction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, as requested by author, User:John essex —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-01 09:50Z
[edit] JohnsAuction
Fails WP:WEB. I prodded it earlier today but author removed the prod. Dipics 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WEB. Also note that the creator of the articles name is also John. Possibly WP:VAIN? SynergeticMaggot 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I thought this looked familiar -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns auction. NawlinWiki 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obviously. — Nathan (talk) / 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- If this page is to be deleted then surely the ebid and ebay pages should be deleted as well? The content for Johns Auction is factual and the external link has been removed. I dont see how this page is any different to the many other pages about auction sites? Please offer suggestions for how the content can be improved. John is a very common name in the UK, BTW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John essex (talk • contribs) .
- Speedy Delete seems happily able for db-bio to apply to me LinaMishima 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unsure what the above comment means? Could you explain further? Content now appears locked so I'm unable to edit to improve the content, can it be un-locked? Can the page be moved to a stub? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John essex (talk • contribs) .
- John essex, the determination of the editors is a) that the website is not notable per the guidelines we call web notability, and b) that the content is a recreation of an article previously deleted, which qualifies it for speedy deletion without continuing this discussion, normally used to determine editorial consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unsure what the above comment means? Could you explain further? Content now appears locked so I'm unable to edit to improve the content, can it be un-locked? Can the page be moved to a stub? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John essex (talk • contribs) .
- Ok, how do I delete the entry? --John essex 07:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You actually want it deleted now? If I'm reading this right... - no, it's been edited by an anon, so it doesn't qualify for G7. Dang. Morgan Wick 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- - Yes, I would rather delete it now and re-submit once I have had time to gather some more background and details. At the moment I can't edit it to improve the content, so better to have nothing than an incomplete entry.--John essex 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You actually want it deleted now? If I'm reading this right... - no, it's been edited by an anon, so it doesn't qualify for G7. Dang. Morgan Wick 09:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Im looking at the entry for EBid - how does that entry meet the notable criteria?
- 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.
