Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach So De No Shira Yuki


 * 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   Speedy delete per G3 (hoax) by. Non-administrative closing —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bleach So De No Shira Yuki

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Poorly written fancruft. Not notable outside existing Sode_no_shirayuki. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 22:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Half a joke - Half fan gibberish. Not only the subject doesn't warrant a spin-out article but it's written in a parody/comical delirium way. One step short from patent nonsense. --KrebMarkt 18:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N. – allen四names 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy deletion under G3 as a blatant and obvious hoax. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, technically "Rukia Kuchiki in Bleach (manga) has power Sode no Shirayuki", so I couldn't really list in as speedy neither for patent nor hoax. Then again I should've just proded it.
 * The article is just so much gibberish that its hard to make out WHAT is is about (A1 No context). From what I can make if it, it is some sort of spin-off of the regular Bleach TV series. In which case, it would fall under G3 as there are no spin-off series. G1 Patent nonsense would be another good speedy deletion criteria as the article is mostly nonsense and random, disconnected comments. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - Strong delete; I was just saying speedy criteria seemed arguable. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete; not enough context provided to identify the subject correctly; no references provided; rambling nonsense. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I don't think it qualifies as speedy, as there's just enough context to figure out what it's trying (badly) to talk about. But definite, very strong delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2010 (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.