Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:19, 24 May 2008 editKleenupKrew (talk \| contribs)1,323 edits →Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency: delete← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:11, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete this codswallop'''. ] (]) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===

	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|W}}

	:{{la\|Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>		:{{la\|Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
	Fails ]. Google search shows several ghits, but no significant coverage in secondary and third party reliable source. It has only a mention in USA Today, but that is not ''multiple reliable source'' and not ''significant coverage''. ''']''' (]) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		Fails ]. Google search shows several ghits, but no significant coverage in secondary and third party reliable source. It has only a mention in USA Today, but that is not ''multiple reliable source'' and not ''significant coverage''. ''']''' (]) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' Appears to fail ]. Passing reference insufficient. ] (]) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' Appears to fail ]. Passing reference insufficient. ] (]) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Weak delete'''. Normally, I'd propose a redirect to the material that uses the term, but I can't really discern what that is. Unfortunately, I think it's best to simply delete it. <~~font~~ ~~color~~="629632">]</font> <sup~~><font~~ ~~color~~="7733ff">~~]</font>~~</sup> 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		*'''Weak delete'''. Normally, I'd propose a redirect to the material that uses the term, but I can't really discern what that is. Unfortunately, I think it's best to simply delete it. ] ] 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	**I think this is basically web content which should be judged per ]; the agency seems to have been created for the self-titled web site, not for a book or movie or other media. --] ] 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		**I think this is basically web content which should be judged per ]; the agency seems to have been created for the self-titled web site, not for a book or movie or other media. --] ] 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' Sources sufficient to assert Notability. --] (]) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' Sources sufficient to assert Notability. --] (]) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Weak delete''' per ] ] \| ] 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)		* '''Weak delete''' per ] ] \| ] 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Delete'''. Somebody's web site for a fictional government agency ] in one day. Not even remotely notable. ] (]) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)		*'''Delete'''. Somebody's web site for a fictional government agency ] in one day. Not even remotely notable. ] (]) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''' as notable and verifiable subject. Sincerely, --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">]</span><sup>'']''</sup> 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
			KEEP - valuable for explination of the site's satirical nature, which is not explained on the website <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] (]) 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)</small>

			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 19:11, 6 February 2023

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 this codswallop. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency

Fails WP:N. Google search shows several ghits, but no significant coverage in secondary and third party reliable source. It has only a mention in USA Today, but that is not multiple reliable source and not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Appears to fail WP:N. Passing reference insufficient. Edison (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. Normally, I'd propose a redirect to the material that uses the term, but I can't really discern what that is. Unfortunately, I think it's best to simply delete it. Celarnor 05:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is basically web content which should be judged per WP:WEB; the agency seems to have been created for the self-titled web site, not for a book or movie or other media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Sources sufficient to assert Notability. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete per Celarnor Carter | Talk to me 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Somebody's web site for a fictional government agency WP:MADEUP in one day. Not even remotely notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep as notable and verifiable subject. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - valuable for explination of the site's satirical nature, which is not explained on the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.140.6 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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.