Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.freewebs.com/jammiet
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. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:21] <freak|talk>
[edit] Www.freewebs.com/jammiet
Self promotional article for a Non-notable website. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Graham 06:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There really needs to be someway to speedy this stuff. tmopkisn tlka 07:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Why isn't it covered by speedy deletion? It's a personal website - why not db-bio or something? --Grace 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Our hands are tied by the following – Advertisements or spam: These may be subject to deletion, but not speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to have personal websites added to that list (the list of bio violations)... but I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that. tmopkisn tlka 07:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion is for those cases where the deletion criteria can be applied by one editor alone without a great risk that an article that we actually would want will be deleted. Evaluation of our notability criteria does not fall into that category. One pair of eyes is not enough for that. Uncle G 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well if someone writes an article about their website hosted on geocities, or their MySpace, I'd think that one editor could render that pretty unnotable on their own. On the other hand, I know what you're saying, and I doubt anything like that would ever have a chance of being added to the guidlines. Especially since this is actually the first time I've seen something of that nature. tmopkisn tlka 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion is for those cases where the deletion criteria can be applied by one editor alone without a great risk that an article that we actually would want will be deleted. Evaluation of our notability criteria does not fall into that category. One pair of eyes is not enough for that. Uncle G 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to have personal websites added to that list (the list of bio violations)... but I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that. tmopkisn tlka 07:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Our hands are tied by the following – Advertisements or spam: These may be subject to deletion, but not speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Why isn't it covered by speedy deletion? It's a personal website - why not db-bio or something? --Grace 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Michael 07:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per the nom as failing WP:WEB. -- Mikeblas 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hoxxy 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nuttah68 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:WEB miserably, but you could pretty much conclude that based on the title alone. Anybody and everybody can put up a page on freewebs. Fan-1967 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious delete per all above, and I think someone should be bold and applyWP:SNOW here. --Kinu t/c 19:08, 18 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.
