Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athene (MovieLOL) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Athene (MovieLOL)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I struggle to see the value in this article to Wikipedia:
 * It is unsourced
 * Contains apparent nonsesnse
 * Links to articles which were previously deleted for similar reasons
 * May violate WP:BLP
 * Written like an essay
 * Written like an autobiography
 * Poorly written
 * Would require a total re-write to meet standards or be valuable to Wikipedia
 * Other issues that should be apparent to most editors     bsmithme    03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, mostly. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not unsourced, and this was pointed out in the previous AFD - which, btw, was a keep.  If it contains apparent nonsense, you clean it up.  If it's got bleeding links, you delink.  WP:BLP may be in violation, but I don't think so here.  This is an article that can be fixed up, but there's no need to nuke it. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire premise for deletion is that the average reader (such as myself) is not able to discern the meaning or context of the article. Thus I think it is imprudent to befall us with the responsibility of cleaning it up. If you look at the history of the article it has been problematic from the beginning and nobody with an apparent understanding of the meaning of the article has ever bothered to clean it up after its first nomination. This in my opinion warrants it for nomination even if it's a second time. --     bsmithme    06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial coverage. Can this be merged into another article? PhilKnight (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that the disambiguation speaks LOL should indicate this is more likely a joke WP:NN as a standalone topic. -- RUL3R *flaming 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Alright, this is a fluff piece that really needs work, and I strongly disagree that this is a notable subject. However ... the main source I read isn't a couple of fluff promotional paragraphs; it's a lengthy, indepth article put out by the Los Angeles Times. It's tough to argue that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, more's the pity.    Ravenswing  23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: Fails to pass WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion. Billbowery (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, fails WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if I assume that the LA Times blog is RS (which I don't, necessarily) it's a good example of why the policies for notability demand multiple references. A single swallow does not make a summer. Not notable = delete. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (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.