Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results

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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a non-notable advocacy group and/or book. By the way, something else very important: what links to this article. Obviously, if this AfD succeeds, all these will need to be delinked. Well, actually, all these links need to be delinked either way, as the links are completely irrelevant. By the way, I'm of the opinion that all these "<sport> at the <year> Olympics" articles need better leads and better lead formatting. TheProject 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your analysis. I have sayed on irc (but you have quitted) that must be a new form of spamming whose created alongside the spam many links to it mainly to render burdensome the speedy deleting. Something similiar to the WoW modus operandi, but IMHO more nasty. I'm really worried.... dott.Piergiorgio 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like many of the links were adding by the same editor, but some were added before. I think that he was just standardizing the titles. -- Kjkolb 02:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is spam. It's just very strange -- the articles seem all to have copied each other. Either that or there's some sort of boilerplate text for Olympic results that I don't know about.

By the way, the article's now been replaced with a dicdef. Still doesn't belong on Wikipedia, if you ask me, because Wiktionary already has a good definition. TheProject 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as dictionary definition. Xyrael ^T 09:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per dicdef. I'm suprised this wasn't caught earlier with all those irellevant links to it. Ydam 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and maybe if a bunch of editors could each start going through a half-dozen of the "What links here" entries we can get the links removed before they turn red. For the most part, they're just in the very top line of all the Olympic articles. Fan1967 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE Links are gone. Didn't take that long to kill 62 of them. Fan1967 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, the organization seems to be somewhat notable per their press releases, however with that information I cannot decide. I am willing to change my vote if someone gives me a valid link. The article cannot stay in Wikipedia as the definition of the word result, that is for Wiktionary. -- ReyBrujo 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, if you check the article history, before it was a non-notable organization it was a non-notable book. Now it's a dicdef. Based on what I can see, none of them deserve to be kept. Fan1967 01:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dicdef. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:41, 5 June 2006 (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.