Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Octo-sloth - Knowledge (XXG)

Source πŸ“

274:. But this trend of nominating articles for deletion the same day of creation (in one instance that I have noted, a mere two minutes after creation) should be nipped in the bud. Another user (I can't remember who, now) commented that when articles are new is the time that users are able to catch them, before they get lost in the shuffle. I say, if you think an article isn't going to amount to much based on its first save, make a note of it on a list somewhere, and come back in a month. Don't nominate it for deletion because you're too lazy to come back later. . . . I mean no disrespect to the nominator in this particular discussion. I'm just feeling irritable about the trend. β‰ˆβ‰ˆ 223:- I have read the article's history page. It was created today, nominated for speedy delete a couple hours later, the speedy delete was contested by the author who promised he would add references, and then brought here to Afd yet a few hours later. I find 0 ghits for the graphic novel "Donnie's Adventures" and 0 ghits for "octo-sloth", so I vote for delete. However, this has all been a bit rapid, hasn't it? 258: 117: 292:- let me be the first to stand beside you in front of the firing squad - I agree totally. This particular article certainly merited a speedy delete, though. 17: 242:- okay, the above person was the contester of the speedy delete. If he's now changed his position, can it now be speedy-deleted? 90: 85: 94: 313: 36: 293: 243: 224: 77: 255: 233: 171: 312:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
146: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
254:- Yes. I've decided that your right and the occto-sloth does not merit a wikipedia page of it's own. Sorry 296: 284: 246: 227: 211: 185: 162: 150: 128: 81: 142: 182: 125: 73: 65: 281: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
271: 196: 138: 276: 178: 159: 111: 195:
Unnecessary; an entire guideline has been dedicated to these such occurrences (
200: 54: 124:
Does not seem notable. Was nominated for speedy deletion and then contested.
306:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
158:
per Stephen who found the shortcut faster than myself. --
107: 103: 99: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 316:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 24: 177:Uhh...I think you need to review 1: 270:. Okay, so this article was 333: 297:18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 285:04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 259:17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 247:17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 228:22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 212:22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 186:22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 163:22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 151:21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 129:21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 272:made up in school one day 309:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 294:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 244:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 225:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 174:22:35, 13 March 2007 236:7:30, 14 March 2007 232:Ah fine. Delete it. 256:Slippery Jim D'Griz 234:Slippery Jim D'Griz 172:Slippery Jim D'Griz 59: 58:2007-03-17 08:54Z 324: 311: 209: 206: 203: 115: 97: 61: 57: 50: 34: 332: 331: 327: 326: 325: 323: 322: 321: 320: 314:deletion review 307: 207: 204: 201: 88: 72: 69: 51: 45: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 330: 328: 319: 318: 302: 301: 300: 299: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 249: 214: 190: 189: 188: 165: 153: 143:Stephen Turner 122: 121: 68: 63: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 329: 317: 315: 310: 304: 303: 298: 295: 291: 288: 287: 286: 283: 279: 278: 273: 269: 266: 260: 257: 253: 250: 248: 245: 241: 238: 237: 235: 231: 230: 229: 226: 222: 218: 215: 213: 210: 198: 194: 191: 187: 184: 183:Hondasaregood 180: 176: 175: 173: 169: 166: 164: 161: 157: 154: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 133: 132: 131: 130: 127: 126:Hondasaregood 119: 113: 109: 105: 101: 96: 92: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 70: 67: 64: 62: 60: 56: 48: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 308: 305: 289: 275: 267: 251: 239: 220: 216: 192: 167: 155: 134: 123: 52: 46: 43: 31: 28: 74:Octo-sloth 66:Octo-sloth 277:Carolfrog 170:Why not? 160:Tikiwont 118:View log 290:comment 268:Comment 252:comment 240:comment 221:comment 91:protect 86:history 217:delete 197:WP:NFT 193:Delete 156:Delete 139:WP:NFT 135:Delete 95:delete 47:Delete 282:♦тос♦ 112:views 104:watch 100:links 55:Quarl 16:< 219:and 179:WP:N 168:Save 147:Talk 137:per 108:logs 82:talk 78:edit 116:– ( 280:β‰ˆβ‰ˆ 208:77 205:SR 199:) 149:) 141:. 110:| 106:| 102:| 98:| 93:| 89:| 84:| 80:| 202:N 181:. 145:( 120:) 114:) 76:( 53:β€” 49:.

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Quarl
Octo-sloth
Octo-sloth
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Hondasaregood
21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFT
Stephen Turner
Talk
21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Tikiwont
22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Slippery Jim D'Griz
WP:N
Hondasaregood
22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFT
NSR77
22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑