Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dd05
promo for "Stoney Creek High School's 4th Annual Cultural Show", and thus quite unencyclopedic. Please note however, "There will be free food". Michael Ward 02:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete ~ mlk ✉ ♬ 02:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
- Delete, but I can be swayed by offering free food that does not require transatlantic travel. --fvw* 03:28, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- If they feel like sending free food transpacific... delete anyway, nn. Alphax (talk) 03:41, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
SpeedyDelete,spamad (one reason why high schools shouldn't be computer-equipped... heh heh, just kidding). Wyss 22:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)- I think we all know this is an obvious delete. But spam is simply not a CSD criterion at the moment, though maybe it should be. Or maybe we should enact the managed deletion track. But since we haven't yet, I don't see the harm in letting the process run its course here. Michael Ward 22:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Spam is included in the definition of vandalism. Wyss 04:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting point. But Wikipedia:Vandalism defines spam as "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion." This article does not consist of an innappropriate external link, nor does it even have an external link. Then in Wikipedia:Spam we find "Advertisements posted on Wikipedia should be dealt with by listing them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion". So, I don't really think this article is intended to be covered by the vandalism clause. Maybe I'm wrong.
- Now, this is an obvious delete. But I can imagine other articles that are a bit less rinky-dink but still have a "promo" feel. I can imagine some that maybe shouldn't be deleted, but just de-hyped a bit. It may be that a dozen admins look at an article like that, but only one thinks it's a speedy. Poof! it's gone. Everyone makes errors in judgement now and then. I've removed a fair number of obviously incorrect speedy tags in the past, ones where the articles survived vfd. That's why I'm being a bit of a stickler for a strict interpretation of policy here. Maybe with a tag-and-bag speedy it would be less of an issue. Anyway, I see your point about vandalism, but I do think it's stretching the definition a bit. Michael Ward 04:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I was rather burned out on the Sollog wars that day. This isn't spam, vandalism, or bad-faith, just a hopeless ad. Wyss 04:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Spam is included in the definition of vandalism. Wyss 04:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete — RJH 19:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete How long does it take before there's a consensus?