Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollaxer

: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 speedy delete. per request from author on talk page Plastikspork (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Rollaxer]]=

:{{la|Rollaxer}} ([{{fullurl:Rollaxer|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollaxer}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:NOTE. No reliable sources in:

[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=rollaxer&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As3g2&fp=Xmf0jJ9P_V0 Google] — [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=rollaxer&sa=N&tab=wn&um=1 news] — [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rollaxer&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=ns scholar] - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy close as the article was created literally 16 minutes before being nominated for AFD. The point of adding tags is to give other users a chance to improve the article, not to inform them why you're about to bring it to AFD. [Addendum: The article in its current form is inadequate, and the topic probably isn't notable. I simply object on principle to bringing an article to AFD immediately after it's created. If it can't be speedy-deleted, at least try a prod first.] Propaniac (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it appears that nobody minds having to discuss the deletion of an article that hasn't existed long enough to show that a) it won't be improved and b) anyone objects to its deletion (that would be the point of prodding first), I might as well change my vote to delete since the article is crap. Pardon me if I refrain from congratulating the nominator. Propaniac (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the article's prior history with deletion when I made my initial comments above. Since everybody (including myself) seems in agreement that the prior history is relevant here, I have absolutely no idea why the nomination itself didn't include this information; if it had, I probably would not have objected to the speed of the nomination. Propaniac (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:Delete. I posted this before but somehow it was erased.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

*Delete. I'm going with spam, there's a possibility for speedy delete. Article seems to be a promotional article for this product, giving little more than what this thing is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt as spam. No issue with the nominator bringing it here other than speedy deletion would have been appropriate as well. Prod would be a waste of time as the creator would likely remove the prod. If they are bold enough to recreate a speedily deleted article after sufficient warning, they are bold enough to remove prod tags. Bringing it to AFD is actually a kinder approach in this case and the nominator is within their rights to do so. --RadioFan (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Nice catch by the nominator. Crafty (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:SPAM. (And Propaniac, you might want to consider that WP:DEADLINE works both ways.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. However, I too am uncomfortable with how quickly it was brought to AfD - it at least suggests that the nominator didn't go through the usual process before nominating Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Commment You must have missed the comments above. This article has been prod'd and speedied multiple times. AFD is appropriate and it's speed really isn't an issue here. Its beginning to snow here (as expected) and I've updated my !vote to include adding creation protection to this title. No need to continue wasting editors time here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that it should be deleted, I was questioning whether the nominator had checked for sources and references etc etc themselves, as in WP:BEFORE Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was speedied twice and failed prodding before it was brought here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy and SALT. The AfD tag was removed by the WP:SPA that created this latest version. I rarely say to salt, but given that it keeps getting re-created and now the author is removing AfD tag and trying to play the "I'm new" game, this stinks of blantant spam. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per talk page of article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:57, 22 July 2009 (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.