User talk:Byrd.eddie

I have declined your nomination for the speedy deletion of the article Eddie Byrd three times. The reasons you gave why the article should be speedy deleted are not criteria for speedy deletion, and while this article has definitely had some issues in the recent past, they are not sufficient to warrant speedy deletion. If you wish to say something about this, you can do so on the article's talk page, Talk:Eddie Byrd, or in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Byrd. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EddieByrd

You did so without adhereing to the Wikipedia rules and policies regarding speedy deletion, too.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Byrd.eddie"

Which "rules and policies" exactly did I not adhere to? Care to be a bit more specific? A ecis^Brievenbus 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Byrd

Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.

Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.

4 reasons right there from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD page.

Let me clarify each of the four points you raised. G3 (pure vandalism) only applies if the article contains nothing but vandalism, and the creation of the article was the result of vandalism. That was not the case. This article has been around for years, while the vandalism has only occurred over the past few weeks. vandalised articles don't automatically get deleted. G7 (author requests deletion) doesn't apply, because the article was created by Jasoned (talk · contribs) in November 2005. Are you Jasoned (talk · contribs)? If you are not, the author hasn't requested the deletion, so G7 doesn't apply. If you are, the additional consideration is that the author isn't the only one who has added "substantial content", so G7 still wouldn't apply. A7 (non-notability) might apply, but as the criterion you quoted states "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." G1 (patent nonsense and gibberish) doesn't apply, because this article is not "unsalvageably incoherent" and it has meaningful content. If the information is incorrect, it needs to be assessed through a deletion discussion, not through speedy deletion. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article eddie byrd

i do request deletion myself. i am the article's original contributor and creator. Jasoned (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]