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 a7, website, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MovieKids.org[edit]

MovieKids.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Taking to AfD as a technicality. Virtually no content and no assertion of notability qualifies the article for speedy deletion as db-nocontext or db-web. However, the speedy tag applied was removed by an editor on a vandalising spree four minutes before they were indefinitely blocked. Speedy Delete. Note - the author did place a hangon tag and request time to finish the article but that was some hours ago now. The actual content there "MovieKids.org is a reliable website about Kids in Movies. PS It's really reliable as a source and never wrong." suggests the article is a joke. Ros0709 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus dude, "some hours ago"??? I don't live on WP like some people. Just leave it for now. I'll fix it soon. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Movie Kids is notable and super-reliable. Not like Wikipedia, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Replovandalate (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This website is an inspiration to People of Weight like all of you. Kitty Lighter (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nearly no content, no reliable sources to verify the information. If this can be fixed and proved notable, please contact me after this has been done. RedThunder 12:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly any content and no indication of notability. StaticGull  Talk  12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. And what's with the insults by Kitty Lighter and the hostility from Replovandalate? tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the very similar comments from the same people at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Laszlo. User:Stagemom67 is there too - the now-banned editor who removed the speedy tag from this article. Ros0709 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kitty Lighter and Replovandalate, whose "rationale" speaks for themselves. JuJube (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's a Speedy Delete, why bring it to AFD? All it does is create a fruitless discussion of meatpuppets calling it "super notable" and condescending veterans pounding their chests like high and mighty nerds. SashaNein (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was already nominated for speedy deletion and another editor removed the tag. Can you clarify your intention - you have highlighted 'speedy delete' which conventionally suggests that is your opinion, but the text is ambiguous. Thx. Ros0709 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. The speedy was not declined, the tag was removed by a vandal who has since been blocked. That should not save an article from a speedy when it doesn't deserve it. This isn't a contested PROD, this a bunch of people throwing a tantrum, and we shouldn't fall for it. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your new speedy tag - not because I disagree with speedy deletion, but because I believe there are additional issues raised here which the closing admin may want to also look into, such as the fact that certain accounts whose first edits were to !vote against concensus on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Laszlo have now appeared together here and done likewise. Ros0709 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion and the logs will still be there. The article is still speedy-worthy. DarkAudit (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Keep. Kitty Lighter (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Delete tiny article on non notable subject--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete website has no notability and non verifiable based on non-trivial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. It probably still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. The article may or may not have been created to lend "weight" elsewhere (which I believe we have a policy against). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is the problem here? The tag was removed by a vandal, and the others are SPA's. Usual procedure in such cases is to deny them recognition and speedy the article. Why should this one be different? DarkAudit (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should be speedied, if we kept this article on the pedia then we would end up with a million irrelevant nonsense pages. Wikipedia is not the place to dump Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.