Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Vindicators

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. - Philippe 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Vindicators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Google finds 44 unique hits for "Original Vindicators" and the only source is the originator's website (which, incidentally, does not work for me either in Firefox or in IE). The originator is called "Rodcom". The author if this article is User:RODCOM. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete This look like advertising to me. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, no good third-party references.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldnt be deleted - I don't see the difference between this entry and the Avengers or the X-men entries. What makes this advertising and those entries not. And there are third party sources at The Museum of Black Superheroes.RODCOM (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, because your comic is a household word like Avengers and has spawned a major movie franchise like X-Men, yes? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• More third-party reference listings for the Original Vindicators are appearing regularly and I didn't know it had to be a household word or have a major movie franchise to be listed here. Your complaint sounds unduely bias.RODCOM (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you'll find that WP:BIAS applies more accurately to, say, writing articles about your own work. Incidentally, now you've fixed your site, I have a suggestion for you: before you attempt to launch a career as an animator, learn to animate basic movements like walking. Also, that music is not original is it? The performing rights people don't like copyright music being used without release or payment. Plus, people aren't going tot ake you seriously when your image galleries have "Web gallery generated by Web Gallery Wizard™" and the like all over them. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I said "unduly bias". My site is as it always was, you system couldn't handle it so you searched for another way in and found a beta version of my site. You can tell the truth now, you already got the entry deleted. And the animation you're ripping on so hard was done by my then 9 year old son on his Lego cam, I think his career as an animator is safe for a while. You have absolutely no idea what agreements I have with who regarding anything. And who cares who or what generated my galleries.

If you spent this much effort creating instead of hating you wouldn't have time for this. Again I said "unduly bias", and you just proved my point.

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.