Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed Demon Community

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Demon Community[edit]

I'm moving this to the vfd page, no vote. Flowerparty ^talk 18:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A blatant case of advertisement here. If the community itself merits an article, this should probably be spared (aside from a rewrite and wikification.) If not, boom. I predict the latter - esp. given that the author's other edits consist of linking to this page. -- Kizor 11:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Speed Demon Community frowns upon da Kizor for this uncalled for statement. -- k-nar 17:48, 22 Sep 2004 (Comment by 82.229.193.143 (talk · contribs))
Kizor lacks in girth department nuff said 8) Da ramrod
- Comment by Da ramrod (talk · contribs) 08:37, 23 September 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- This is an entirely useless Vanity Article. This is not a community of any cultural significance and the article is poorly written. Articles like this turn wikipedia into a self-promotional tool. --Isotope23 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also should mention this article has been deleted on 2 previous occasions.--Isotope23 19:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, This sounds like a stunt by Ali G. Maybe they need more of a "moisture rating"... Karmafist 20:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the page have been removed. it is not advertising; it is enlightening ^^ (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))
Delete - speedy if possible. Non-notable forumcruft of the worst kind. FCYTravis 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable to you, but it is highly notable to the piano community and both an interesting read and topic. (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))

Can you explain why it's notable to the piano community, Mr. Invisible Man? Karmafist 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

because it's different. worth noting. also it is well-known. no reason why it shouldnt be in here; it's not hurting anyone. if you dont like it you dont have to read it, but many people in the community would like to. (Unsigned comment by Coonieface (talk · contribs))
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read through the vanity article guidelines and this doesnt even come close to being a vanity article. Some of the things it would have to be:

completely uninteresting (which it isnt) using many outlinks (it has no links outside of Wiki at ALL)

your main claim that this is a vanity article is that the subject is quite obscure. If you look in the guidelines for determining whether or not an article is a vanity article, you will see that they SPECIFICALLY state that the obscurity of an article does NOT make it a vanity article.

So if you people want it deleted soo badly i advise you find another reason. (Unsigned comment by 69.17.120.143 (talk · contribs))

DO NOT DELETE - As someone who frequents many classical music forums, I feel that I am in a position to note that the originality of the SDC as a concept and its influence on music culture on the internet is such that it is worthy of a Wikipedia article. It is also unfair to consider this article for deletion when there are dozens of other "Internet_phenomenon" articles (i.e., Star_wars_kid).

--AlkanSite 05:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Jake)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.