Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TreasureTrooper

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 bury the treasure, and salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TreasureTrooper

• Non-notable website, borderline spam, AND it was previously deleted so we may have a speedy here. Avi 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ya I agree with you on this one. The website is a spam-lovers paradise and a spam-haters worst nightmare. And I remember when it was deleted before, so theres no need for this article to be remade again.--koolgiy 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete first 20 google hits are mostly forum spam from treasure trooper members. Phr (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Someone slap a tag on. SynergeticMaggot 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect from re-creation: was deleted twice in one day before, why not keep it from ever being made again? Ryulong 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect from re-creation: Good point. Lets delete the article and banish it forever!--koolgiy 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Regular delete this newest version is substantially different - it is more neutral and does not read like an advert anymore. The previous versions were blatant and even included the referer ID in their external link. Kimchi.sg 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And the same won't happen to it if it is recreated? Ryulong 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We have something called... page protection. No one shall invoke the holy clause of CSD G4 for the purpose of this AfD. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well its a valid internet address, its just the only problem is people keep changing it to make it look like a referral, from the website. Maybe we should keep it, but have a [sprotect] tag on it, so people who aren't registered can't just go on and screw around.--koolgiy 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• (Removed extremely incivil comment by 68.112.238.207 (talk · contribs)) Ryulong 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertising --Xrblsnggt 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I can't imagine HOW it could possibly be "substantially different" from the previous, give it's -- what? -- one fact-light sentence long? --Calton | Talk 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation, fails WP:WEB. This isn't "substantially" different, but is probably different enough to avoid G4-ing. Still, this should definitely be salted, especially if it was deleted twice in one day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation. I agree with all the comments made so far - nothing much more to add. --Mark ^{(Talk | Email)} 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but that it should have the "vandalism lock" so anonymous or new members can't edit it. People should have a place to learn about TT without having a ref link at the end, and Wikipedia is the perfect place for it.Kaabi 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, it's an annoying, but ubiquitous.--JD79 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• How much longer?, How much longer does it take untill we make a decision? koolgiy 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As we have decided this should not be speedied, this has five days to run, so we need to wait until July 23 to determine the consensus. -- Avi 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? Wow- I had no idea this was already made- I don't think its going too badly so far though- especially since it's been locked :/--Dagibit 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's FINE! So now that no one can edit including me - the one who started and maintained the article - and it is substantially different including it's neutrality, why can't we just keep it and remove the tags?--141.151.94.113 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only semi-protected. -- Avi 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus you (141.151.94.113) were making the article look like a referral or an advertisent for the website. Koolgiy 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• How? All I initially wrote was that it was a survey site that pissed others off for spamming! I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added. I transformed it to be neutral, and cleaner! All I wanted was to learn more than its user's spamming.--151.197.119.208 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• So why am I the original author who did not write it as an advert blocked from editing? How is this semi-protected?--151.197.119.208 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Section from History on TT article

This is what you (151.197.119.208) added. Tell me if it sounds advertismentish

There is also an opportunity to complete daily surveys in the Cash Surveys section. If you qualify and successfully complete the daily survey, TreasureTrooper will pay you .75 cents. If you qualify for and successfully complete every daily survey, you could potentially earn up to $22.50 each month by doing the daily surveys alone.

TreasureTrooper.com also allows you may also participate in contests, earn items gold coins, pearls and virtual gems, which are used to purhase items at an online trading post called Mabutu's Trading Hut. The purchases made at Mabutu's Trading Hut can be used to earn extra referrals, participate in online contests, and help you in your search for the fabled Lost Statue from the Mambiku Tribe, worth $100.00 in prize money! There are several contests offered to help you increase the amount of money you make on Treasure Trooper.'--Koolgiy 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply What You Think

• I did NOT write that! Look over ALL the history if you want to reference to it. I refined that over many re-edits. If you look through history longer you'll notice that text's original addition was added by another user, while it's dramatic change was made by me. Remember me saying here, "I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added."? YOUR QUOTE was what I was talking about! ALSO, did you not notice my criticizing that in the discussion section?--141.151.78.22 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• It has come to my attention that User:141.151.78.22 shows no sign of contributions on the TreasureTrooper article. Unless they were signed in at the time of the modification.Koolgiy 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• HAHAHAHA eheh hahaha... My randomly bieng logged off for a period would explain why I, Dagibit and 141.151.78.22, couldn't sign edits as Dagibit, and was not able to edit the article or to argue. I did admit to sucking at this kind of stuff in the discussion section, but either way, I'm sorry for the large amount of spam this caused here and for sort of flaming you, koolgiy. Now back to buisness, The article really is improved from the state that you shared, so why can't it stay?--Dagibit 15:28, 22 July 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.