User talk:Fireranger19

Stockcar Heat

A tag has been placed on Stockcar Heat, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Proofreader J-Man 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mod is pretty much non-notable. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

       Please expand on your reasoning. I have quoted the following for your convenience.

"If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable".

This goes double if you're nominating an article. "NN" is not a reason for deletion. "Fails WP:BIO", "I think this subject is of interest to only a very limited number of people", or "unverifiable" are. At the very worst, please expand on why you think someone or something is non-notable.

The exception to this is when referring to CSDs like {{nn-bio}}, {{nn-band}}, and the like. The nn prefix here refers to the articles lacking any assertion of notability." --Fireranger19 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't show any sign of notability. There was no references detailing its uses. Moreover, te article was written in the style of a advertisement, since the external links simply were sent to a server and a site for development of the mod. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...? Mod development? This mod is definatly not in development nor is it a beta, as stated (if you had read the article that is) the mod has been released for many years. Site 1 linked to the community that uses the mod. Site 2 linked to the website of the developer who is now developing a mod for rF (again if you had read the website). --Fireranger19 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]