Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treestyle

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 09:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treestyle

Delete. Non-notable "sport"; Wikipedia is not for things made up in the park one day. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably should have gone to CSD. NN. Ridernyc 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ridernyc, NN. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 00:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ridernyc. Pig^man 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably should have been speedied, possibly hoax candidate. VanTucky ^Talk 04:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. due to WP:NFT. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I Prodded this as it didn't quite seem to meet CSD criteria. Is NN or NFT on its own sufficient reason to CSD? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim: Absolutely not. CSD requirements are very strict for a very good reason. Prod'ing was the right thing to do with this article. That said, clearly, delete. - Che Nuevara 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Che, I thought that was the case. I use Twinkle when I'm deciding on whether to CSD or not, and use the rule of thumb that if I can't find a Twinkle template to apply then I need to Prod instead. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 22:16, 17 October 2007 (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.