Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quizap
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 Pages have been deleted (not by closing admin). Cbrown1023 talk 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quizap
- Quizap (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
- Quizap! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This is not very notable - still under construction (the website, not article), and scarcely heard of. Tim.bounceback 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just because a page isn't noteable doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist. The two stubs you recently upload to Wikipedia are also not noteable, and yet, they are'nt on the deletion page? Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.230.60 (talk • contribs)
- Would you care to elaborate on which stubs he uploaded? Please link to the articles, and I am also noting that the two edits that Tim did immediately prior to the addition of your article to AfD were minor edits to a childs' novel and to DeCSS. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, the two stubs I uploaded where XBT Tracker and Sybari, and I uploaded them because they were on the requests page. --Tim.bounceback 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... well, he does have a point, but I'm not going to nom those. =^^= --Dennisthe2 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same IP left a note on my talk page for "vandalizing" the Quizap article - must have been pretty mad at the deletion... --Tim.bounceback 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, I retract my statement about having a point, and replace it with one about proving a point. Oy gevalt.... --Dennisthe2 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same IP left a note on my talk page for "vandalizing" the Quizap article - must have been pretty mad at the deletion... --Tim.bounceback 12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... well, he does have a point, but I'm not going to nom those. =^^= --Dennisthe2 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, the two stubs I uploaded where XBT Tracker and Sybari, and I uploaded them because they were on the requests page. --Tim.bounceback 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate on which stubs he uploaded? Please link to the articles, and I am also noting that the two edits that Tim did immediately prior to the addition of your article to AfD were minor edits to a childs' novel and to DeCSS. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is not a personal attack - see Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks to see what one is. I am not commenting in any sort of way that is negative towards you. Please, let's not turn this into a huge debate - this is about the article, not the nominator or contributor. --Tim.bounceback 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could explain to us why this is a personal attack? I mean, it doesn't look like one to me, and Tim there has already said it's not. --Dennisthe2 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now a user - "Imbilly" - has moved "Quizap" to "Quizap!", simply blanking the original page and copying everything to the new one, which complicates matters further. Does this mean that we have two articles for deletion? --Tim.bounceback 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to say. I'd say "no", but that's just me. Any admins that can take a look at this? --Dennisthe2 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so, in summary, we now are voting on an article that is useless to vote on, because it doesn't exist anyway - does the discussion move to the new one. We definitely need an admin - is there any way we can contact an admin, or should we just wait for one? --Tim.bounceback 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hard to say. I'd say "no", but that's just me. Any admins that can take a look at this? --Dennisthe2 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If a page isn't notable, then it doesn't have the right to exist on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability for details. If the website is still under construction, how can it possibly be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself? This article is doing little more than functioning as an ad. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and per commentary. To the user who commented in favor of a keep, please note that "not notable" is not only exactly the reason it's here, it is, indeed, grounds for a deletion on Wikipedia. Please reference this link for details on what constitutes notable. Note, this is not to deny any justification of the existence of your page, and I am certainly not prejudiced to recreation of the article if it does indeed become notable - but at this time it does not meet our criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This stub highly appears to have been created by the creator or the website itself. How else could one know of a non-notable under-construction organization?AFYFAF 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - the articles above have been speedied (recursive redirection), it should be safe to close this. Can we assume under the circumstances that a G4 in the future is justifiable? --Dennisthe2 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was the one who speedied the two redirects (which only redirected to each other with no content at all) based on this having been closed as delete earlier. IrishGuy talk 00:19, 27 February 2007 (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.
