Talk:GAMPAC
This page is a candidate for speedy deletion as a short article with no context. It is no more than an advertisement for some web site, and verges on spamming. There is no information in the article that would lead anyone to believe that this organization is of any importance or interest at all. Consider the future of the Wikipedia if it is filled with tens of thousands of similar "articles" by everybody's vanity group. As an "external link" on one of the "Atheism" articles it would be questionable. As a separate article, it is nonsense.
- Vanity doesn't make for candidate for speedy deletion, it makes for candidates for regular deletion. Aris Katsaris 12:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you aren't a sysop, then leave the candidate for speedy deletion tag, and let the sysop decide. If you are a sysop, then I yield to your greater authority, but do you really want to open the Wikipedia to two-sentence ads for every organization in existence with a web site?
- No, AFAIK it isn't standard procedure to let "sysops" decide in matters where policy goes against them -- this is quite clearly *not* an issue of speedy deletion, but an issue for ordinary process deletion instead: where's the policy that justifies you adding a speedy delete tag? And, no, I don't want to open the Wikipedia to two-sentence ads and I might therefore vote in favour of the page's deletion through the *standard* procedure. But neither do I want open the Wikipedia to thousands of articles being put through speedy deletion when there is no policy justifying it. Aris Katsaris 13:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- But as you say, I will now let the notice stay and not revert again. Aris Katsaris 13:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, AFAIK it isn't standard procedure to let "sysops" decide in matters where policy goes against them -- this is quite clearly *not* an issue of speedy deletion, but an issue for ordinary process deletion instead: where's the policy that justifies you adding a speedy delete tag? And, no, I don't want to open the Wikipedia to two-sentence ads and I might therefore vote in favour of the page's deletion through the *standard* procedure. But neither do I want open the Wikipedia to thousands of articles being put through speedy deletion when there is no policy justifying it. Aris Katsaris 13:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A sysop doesnt have any "greater authority", just extra powers. 2 line adverts, as long as they are NPOV, are IMHO fine: disk space is cheap. However, if you think its sufficently non-notable vanity, put it up for WP:VfD. Iain 13:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- There is only one way to propose to the sysops that a page be speedily deleted, and that is to put the delete tag on the page. I am proposing the speedy deletion of this page, and other people can comment on that in this discussion. But they should not simply be removing my request. How else is one supposed to make speedy deletion requests, and what right does anyone else have to suppress my requests, other than a sysop?
- Just because you can make a speedy deletion request this way doesn't mean you should. There are multiple people disagreeing with you, and that all by itself is an indication that this is not a speedy deletion candidate. Use the regular VfD channel instead, which allows for discussion and debate. Bryan 17:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (cross posted from User talk:24.218.179.253)
WP:CSD case 4 is "Very short articles with little or no definition or context". While the GAMPAC article is indeed very short, it does have definition and does have context. While, for your peace of mind, I will leave it for a sysop to decide, I suspect that the mere fact of two editors disagreeing with you will make them decide against speedying it. I would encourage you to remove the CSD tag yourself, and, if you still feel it merits deletion, add it to WP:VfD Iain 14:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)