Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death planes (common game)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Death planes (common game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Totally made up, unsourced, speculative or hoax (who can tell?) Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it is real, I hardly see this passing WP:GNG.  ༺ gabrielkfl ༻  (talk)  03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if this is real, it's not sourced at all. See also WP:NFT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources whatsoever. Possibly made up at school one day. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment MEEEH. I didn't read the part about the boy being struck with a paper plane. What the hell? Just get this thing deleted at once. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B;  (talk)  06:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I swear I've seen an article like this before. It was speedily deleted, and this one should be too. KeptSouth (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Probably speedy deletable as a hoax, but otherwise clearly not notable. &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 17:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whoever wrote it seems to be fairly articulate, it's a shame they're writing this crap instead of something useful. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * O.o Hello? There's a boy in coma because some freak threw an A2 paper plane at him. Besides, the general scope of the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. It shows some clear issues like "many people believe" and is excessively evasive. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B;  (talk)  21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Admittedly the author does not seem to be well-versed on WP's MoS, but he is still a generally good writer which could potentially mean a good WP editor. That's all I'm saying.  --Ashershow1talk • contribs 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete My prod 3 comment was '"Many people believe this is because" & "No one knows exactly who" - come back when you can say who, and when someone actually does know, and you can reliably reference the lot.' It is somewhat more articulate than the run of the mill rubbish, but in contents is as devoid of worthiness of a place here as is the average hoax. The author is probably well capable of writing a good article, or of doing some proper editing, and I would hope to see them becoming useful rather than being merely a minor nuisance. It's more fun, actually, and at AfD you get the chance to be quite rude at times... Peridon (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen articles that attribute the creation of their subjects to excessively opaque pseudonyms. That might be acceptable on a personal blog or a discussion forum, but this is an encyclopedia, and I find it quite hard to think of something such as "the word was coined by DaLulz88" being verifiable. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete another article about something made up in school some day. MLA (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2011 (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.