Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBCode

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.

BBCode

The result was bold speedy keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOWBALL and the nominator's statement that the nomination was placed on the article while it was in a state of vandalism. Tarinth (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and misplaced Wikidās ॐ 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was this AfDed because of the shit formatting? The article was blanked then poorly restored by a vandal, it has now been corrected. Wongm (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Comment: Corrected version is better - you are correct. Wikidās ॐ 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems very notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject, many forums use this syntax for forum posts. Just tag it with some templates to indicate what needs to be improved. - Simeon (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Most every piece of forum software (except Lithium Technologies, from what I know) uses this. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs external links converted to proper references, but definitely notable as a de facto standard. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 19 July 2008 (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.