Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antifiction


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Antifiction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Once speedy deleted as advertising but re-posted and contested speedy deletion. In any case, despite the author's claim on the talk page, this very much looks like advertising or soapboxing. No third-party sources attesting to the importance of the movement. The term "antifiction" has been used many times in different contexts and is certainly not, as the article seems to suggest, some 21st Century creation. Pascal.Tesson 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Taht 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This smells awfully like spam to me. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt Definately spam. It's been deleted before, so salt. Yamakiri 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT per Yamakiri, GlassCobra. Spam, spam, spam. Accounting4Taste 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt, obviously spam, fails WP:RS as well. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, certainly looks like spam. The fact the author recently blanked the page and replaced it with a link suggests that may be the case. Would delete it myself, but I am yet to read up on the new salting technique. J Milburn 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuke per above. - Flubeca Talk 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Revised Content has been revised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.58.49 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete And salt. Even after revisions still looks spammy, and isn't verifiable with reliable sources B figura  (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Revised Content has been revised further —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.142.147 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally saved content before I was finished creating it, resulting in the first deletion. I was unaware that doing so  would result in such a negative reaction.  Now, the information is updated.  I invite all critics to revise as you see fit.  If you continue to find this entry problematic, let me know if you have any specific opinions on how to resolve these issues.
 * Delete. It's fine to describe a hip-hop act as a "movement" on the website and in press kits, but not in Wikipedia. Antifiction will merit a Wikipedia article only after someone who's not in the group (or paid by the group, or making money off the group) is moved to write about it. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "movement" Revised (please verify that members or money are involved in authorship.....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.74.208 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2007 (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.