Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Functions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Functions

[edit]
Advanced Functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable dance crew. No sources exist to demonstrate notability. I felt like the article asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy, so after prod tag removed I brought it here for discussion. The references cited in the article don't lead to anything that mentions Advanced Functions or Mongoose. Darkspots (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep <-- Changed The site can be accessed at www.AdvancedFunctions.tk. A redirect from freewebs.com, but as seen freewebs faced a roll back on a relative creation time with certain websites. Causing the actualy page to be inactive/non-existant currently. It is planned to be re-iniated. Also the page was not complete, more pictures and links were planned to be imported. I disagree that this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pevepower (talk • contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep <--- Changed Agree with aforementioned user. I dont know the crew personally. But I have visited their sites and other notations of them. Potentially not popular, they have very little searchable data on them on the internet. But is not in disagreement with becoming a Wiki-article. Give the guy a breather. Marjiid (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This one is close, i'm not sure these sources would pass WP:N, and it is written like an advertisment. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7 - Creator has abandoned article. If G7 not met, then Delete ordinarily for not getting sufficient coverage to meet WP:N. RayAYang (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I restored the content per WP:OWN. I think this AfD should run. Darkspots (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The page should not be restored. There is no need of consensus, because the only source of information is me. Therefore If I want it removed I want it removed. No one else has contributed therefore, there is no need of consensus. Please do not bring back the page Darkspots. I think this AfD should end. (Pevepower (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hang On The only reason that {{db-author}} doesn't apply here is that two other editors have argued in this discussion to keep the article. Otherwise I totally understand, but we have to respect everyone who contributed. Darkspots (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment If by two other editors you mean have edited the article itself, no that is wrong. But if you don't mean that, you just mean they were involved in this AfD then I understand. And I agree to keep the page running. As long as the information of the page will not be returned till' further decision. Because we can always bring back the information later.

Sorry, but I can't have the information up right now for certain reasons. Thanks in advanced for understanding :) (Pevepower (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.6.127 (talk) [reply]

Actually, I don't understand why the article can't stay up so that it can be evaluated by other editors. Right now there is no consensus in this discussion to delete the article or keep it. Nothing in this article about the group violates our policy about biographies of living persons. I think the article should get reverted back to the last revision I made.
Now, if you happened to be in control of the two accounts, Marjiid and HardronMan, that would be a different story, we could delete the article and block those two accounts right now. Otherwise, I think we have to respect their opinion and let this get evaluated by more editors so the community can make a decision about the article. Darkspots (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Keep <- Changed Darkspots, the thing is, I am part of the dance crew. So we didn't fully agree on the name or much yet. It was a temporary name for some time. And my other people involved didn't really want this up yet till' things were settled. Now when I found this out after putting it up. I decided well I'll save the hassle and just take it down since it's my article and no one has contributed. But I guess since, Marjiid and Hardronman have for whatever reason sided for keeping it. I would have to leave it up. But I really don't want this article spread just yet. If the article does manage to come on Wikipedia, which I do hope for, now or later. I guess I will go back into voting for a Keep, because if I could get the article now. And then make minor changes in the future. That would be fine. Sorry, for putting you through all of this. (Pevepower (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • DELETE FINAL FINAL. I know this is me again. But we are not going with Advanced Functions, so looks like we will be going with another name. Finally, a change. I guess since we cannot change the article name. I'll have to make a new one. (Pevepower (talk) 23:52, 14 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Functions&oldid=1071336101"