Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connectra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Connectra[edit]
This is blatent advertising and has no place on wikipedia. Delete please... Vanky 11:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Partially copyvio'd from here. Mgm|(talk) 12:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure wikispam. Agree this should be a speedy, but I can't find a justification for that in the current policy. Andrewa 13:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't being a copyvio a valid reason? Mgm|(talk) 21:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: No, or not in terms of current policy, anyway. The policy on speedy deletions is at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notes explicitly states Please note that copyright problems are not candidates for speedy deletion unless they meet one of the above criteria. The policy on copyvios is at Wikipedia:copyright problems, and the procedures there don't include speedy deletion as an option. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I just typed that and got an edit conflict :) anyway if you see a copyvio, you should blank the article and slap a {copyvio} tag on it, then list it on the page indicated by that tag.
- Comment: IMO the policy on what to do if a copyvio is already listed here is not terribly clear in some cases, but to now list this one as a copyvio seems a complete waste of time to me. It will not make deletion any faster, and will make it a lot more complicated. What's the point? Ideally, check for copyvios before listing on VfD, and list pure copyvios in the proper place and not here. In this case, the copyright owner will probably give permission anyway, and the VfD case is strong, so surely just VfD is the go. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, I just typed that and got an edit conflict :) anyway if you see a copyvio, you should blank the article and slap a {copyvio} tag on it, then list it on the page indicated by that tag.
- Comment: No, or not in terms of current policy, anyway. The policy on speedy deletions is at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notes explicitly states Please note that copyright problems are not candidates for speedy deletion unless they meet one of the above criteria. The policy on copyvios is at Wikipedia:copyright problems, and the procedures there don't include speedy deletion as an option. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't being a copyvio a valid reason? Mgm|(talk) 21:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.