Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis T. Romero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search - 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Luis T. Romero[edit]
Non-notable, possible copyvio from here-> [[1]] PresN 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]
- Delete as nn, copyvio. Tychocat 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
- Delete as per PresN. In the future, I suggest taking copyright violations to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Just blank the article and slap on the {{copyvio}} template. Then list the article on the Copyright Problems subpage of the day, which is linked to on the template after you save the article. That is all you have to do. After 7 days, if no one asserts that the article is not a copyright violation, the article will be deleted without discussion. The vast majority of articles are deleted. Perhaps one or two articles out of the dozens submitted each day are kept. It is significantly less work than AfD and the copyright violation is only visible in the history before it is deleted, unlike AfD which displays the article's content so that editors can decide its fate. Finally, if the AfD decision is to keep the article, you'll have to either rewrite the article or take it to copyright problems. -- Kjkolb 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
- Delete - agree with Kjkolb. -- Whpq 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[]
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment