Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 22 April 2008

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Purge server cache

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad Legend

Sad Legend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to show how it meets the WP:MUSIC notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has not been established. No reputable sources available. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. One review in a genera-specific magazine and one directory-style profile don't seem to me to be nearly enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC inclusion criteria. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:54, 22 April 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.

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nekros Kidemonas

Nekros Kidemonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be fan fiction or a hoax. TheMile (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete, no Google hits, almost certainly a hoax. Speedy? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, almost sounds like a D&D concept, but not enough context to tell. In any case the text is nearly indecipherable. // Chris 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard to tell if this is something made up one day, a hoax of some sort, some type of original research, or what, but it is definitely unsourced, unverifiable, and makes no claim of notability for whatever it is. ~There was more to this AfD discussion, but the text was unreadable.~ OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a hoax or an unsourced bit from some work of fiction or fanfiction. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 28 April 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.

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tales Of Worlds

Tales Of Worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an apparently non-notable RPG that, according to the article, was literally made up one day. Erechtheus (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There must be thousands of games made using RPG Maker. There are probably a few that have become popular enough to deserve their own articles, but this isn't one of them. So Awesome (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia isn't myspace. Someoneanother 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - could not find anything to demonstrate notability.Gazimoff _Read 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced, unverifiable, and doesn't even pretend to be notable. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable and not verifiable. Sephiroth BCR 01:25, 24 April 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.

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 as WP:MADEUP and WP:NFT; early closure per WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tips-basketball

Tips-basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No refs. Seems made up in one day. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates WP:NFT. Erechtheus (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per NFT, I don't suppose there's any criteria to speedy it under? So Awesome (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. —Scott5114↗ 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No references, no verifiability, no notability. Appears to be something made up one day. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - So tagged as db-content as there is none, it is WP:OR and WP:MADEUP --Pmedema (talk) 02:56, 22 April 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.

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Plotbunny

Plotbunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fanfic community neologism, without any supporting cites to verifiable reliable sources: author admits as much on talk page. Fails to meet notability criteria. The Anome (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As a term, its use is not limited to fanfiction -- I've seen it used in general writing forums and heard published authors use it in conversation. I suspect, though, that not enough reliable sources can be found to make this pass WP:NEOLOGISM. I'll give it a try over the next couple days, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: No references provided, seems made up. Dwilso 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete yes this is a real term. No it is not encyclopedic. JuJube (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No references are provided to verify that this neologism is notable. Possible OR. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Really, the term belongs on Urban Dictionary, if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete wikt:plot bunny already does the job, without the additional OR. – sgeureka 08:42, 27 April 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.

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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Album Network RAWK 7

Album Network RAWK 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really sure about this one, WP:MUSIC does not make it clear about whether that notability policy pertains to compilation albums or not. A few possibly notable bands are on the album, but the fact a good chunk of the bands represented, almost all the track titles, as well as the album's distrubtor are redlinked and there is no independent coverage, references, assertion of notability (or sources for that matter) and the author's assertion that this was created "From my record collection" makes me think this is we could apply WP:MUSIC and call it NN. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No assertion of notability for the album from nn label. A one sentence article with a track list. Delete B.Wind (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Some notable acts, but a few too many red links and no real reviews to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet the notability standard of WP:MUSIC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I would say that a compilation album, no matter how major the artists, is not, in itself, notable unless it meets WP:N and/or WP:MUSIC in its own right and this album doesn't seem to do so. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:30, 22 April 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.