This article was improperly deleted less than 24 hours after being listed for AFD. It had not been nominated for speedy deletion. There was intensive, ongoing discussion on the AFD page and no consensus had been reached. Full disclosure: I voted for deletion, but the discussion was still active. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – The result was Speedy delete (CSD#A7) by User:Werdna. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) because he is a hothead This should be illegal and against everything Wikipedia stands for He was bias from the start I kept notes he was NOT Neutral at all. 68.167.66.114 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) The result was Speedy delete (CSD#A7) by User:Werdna. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Just want to clarify that I didn’t delete the article. I couldn’t, because I’m not an admin. The deletion was performed by Wikipedia:User:Werdna. I merely added the closing template to the discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be both enlightening and amusing to see any of this comment substantiated. — Werdna • talk 07:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse First off, you (the IP user above) are confusing Werdna with Equazcion, who are two separate editors. Equazcion simply added the message in the debate noting that Werdna deleted the article as A7. As far as whether A7 was an appropriate rationale given the size of that debate, I would personally invoke Wikipedia:WP:IAR on that one. This concept was not an article. It was an original research side project that had no displayed notability and no likelihood of being verifiable, self referential citations, was a neologism, and violated probably a half dozen sections of Wikipedia:WP:NOT. This page did not have a snowballs chance in hell of being kept. Resolute 07:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The article was deletable under more than one CSD criteria. Granted, the “controversy” demonstrated in the AfD may have been reason to allow the discussion to run its course. However, I’m going to agree with Resolute, that Wikipedia:WP:IAR should apply here. Part of the intention of the article creator seems to have been experimentation with the violation of Wikipedia’s rules and the creation of controversy. Its authors seem to delight in the resulting lengthy and emotional discussion. We would only be aiding that goal by allowing the AfD to continue, and encouraging similar attempts in the future. IMO. Besides which, as Resolute also pointed out, Wikipedia:WP:SNOW also applies. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:23, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• The article was egregiously stupid, and the only people voting to keep it seemed to be new editors who were undoubtedly involved with the article’s creation. There is no discussion necessary on silly little experiments like this. We delete them unless there is some indication that they meet our criteria for inclusion – that is, substantial coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is no evidence that this was anything other than something made up in school one day. — Werdna • talk 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – does not meet any inclusion criteria, and prompt deletion was appropriate particularly in light of the intended effects that are contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Resolute said what I was going to – this was not an article and did not stand a snowball’s chance in hell at being kept. Mr.Z-man 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Absolute mess of an article, running completely against Wikipedia’s stated purpose and many of its rules while definitely satisfying speedy criteria. Should be salted too for good measure. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Already salted. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:21, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:WP:SNOW – the balance of the AfD arguments on policy was clear: “this is not what WP is for” versus Wikipedia:WP:ILIKEIT. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The article should have been speedily deleted in the first place. It was my mistake to send it to AfD in the first place and I apologise for allowing it the oportunity to get out of hand. The AfD may have been shorter than normal but it was very active. The deletion got more discussion than average. There is no reason to suspect that keeping it open longer would have lead to a different result. It had already explored all the relevant issues, become repetitive and wandered into general discussion. This is not censorship. They can have their content back and host it somewhere else if they want to. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, with caveats. I feel like I should say “Overturn and Relist” because A7 is clearly not applicable — the article did, to my recollection, contain an assertion of notability. But the end result is absolutely appropriate; just because there is no CSD that would apply is no reason to restart the morass of ridiculous arguments found in the AfD. (I boggle at how quickly the authors were able to construct a following for their little project; how could something created only yesterday already be famous enough to attract so much attention?) My only remaining reservation is that allowing this to speedied improperly sets a bad precedent, and DanielRigal’s inappropriate call for quick closure in the AfD — both actions have the appearance (even though not the reality) of “quick, let’s sweep this under the rug before the ‘keep’ voters can make their case”. How much harm would it have been to let the AfD run its course? Powers ^T 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I should have handled it differently. I can only apologise and try not to make the same mistake again. There is no way I would want this to set a precedent. —DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse per Wikipedia:WP:SNOW. Right result, even if not strictly the right process. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the result, open minded on the method. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. If the AfD was going to be closed early, it should have been a snowball delete rather than via an invalid speedy deletion criterion — actions like this one do harm to the reputation of the A7 tag. That said, it’s futile to re-list a discussion that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of resulting in any other decision than deletion. Therefore, overturn is not warranted. All’s well that ends well; the discussion (and the non-encyclopedic art edits in the article space) went on long enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that deletion was necessary; an earlier speedy delete might not have produced such clarity. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Wikipedia:WP:SNOW. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)