Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desolation's Angels


 * 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. --Core desat 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Desolation's Angels
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

What is this? Seems like a non-notable story, in any case I couldn't find info on the 'Net. Primary author removed csd : Kl4m 06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's odd that you couldn't find anything on Desolation's Angels on the 'Net. I just did a Google search and they came back as the number one entry on that search engine. That should be reason enough not to delete this page.User:HaarFager 2.10 a.m., 2 August 2007

Addendum: I just found out why this page is slated for deletion and I'm no sock puppet or whatever that is. True, I'm a fairly new user, within the last year or so, but I still don't know exactly what I'm doing at times. The help files can be confusing at times, so please bear with me. I'm trying to learn this format.User:HaarFager 2.16 a.m., 2 August 2007

I'm the author of this page and I only have one question. I don't see any difference between this Desolation's Angels page and the page you have on Star Trek. They are both about futuristic science fiction stories. Here's my question: Is the Star Trek page slated for deletion next? And, if not, why not?PaulLatimer 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't see any difference between this Desolation's Angels page and the page you have on Star Trek".....apart from the fact that the page on Star Trek has dozens of references to third-party articles published on the subject and lists at least 15 reference books which have been published on the subject, thereby clearly establishing its notability, whereas the Desolation's Angels page has nothing anywhere in it to indicate that anyone other than the creators even knows it exists..... ChrisTheDude 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, this particular page is thought to be a "single-purpose account." Doesn't the fact that I already edited your page on "Butterfly" by uploading a picture of a "Common Buckeye" and changing the lesser quality image you had there conclude that that is a purpose in and of itself? How can my account be considered "single-purpose" then, by the definition you use? Just a thought. It looks like my page is going to bite the big one, but I just wanted to let you know I'm not a one-trick pony.PaulLatimer 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:V and mainly WP:N; i can't find anything anywhere else about this, other than a handful of identical Google hits. Also, the author might want to watch out for hot WP:WAX. OBM | blah blah blah 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, or redirect to Desolation Angels. Tizio 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A directed Google search turns up a threadbare 15 hits, few referring to the subject, quite aside from the article being pushed by a pair of WP:SPAs.    Ravenswing  13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as Original Research. Fails WP:N. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We're glad to hear that. In general, though, an editing pattern of 72 edits related to the creation of one article and three for everything else suggested a particular tendency.  Your ongoing contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia are certainly welcome.    Ravenswing  17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to join this conversation for just a short moment. I will simply say my piece and leave. I am the creator of Desolation's Angels. I am not here to beg for it to be salvaged, quite the opposite actually. I ask you to delete it before the five day period. You are all correct. It does not belong in your Encyclopedia. The only reason it was put here was because I enjoyed Wiki so much I thought: "You know, I would like to see what I have spent my life creating in there." I apologize because I did not realize the myriad rules. I should have read them before suggesting the idea. It is not notable to you, it is only notable to those who create it, and those who hear and enjoy it. So please, let us end the debate on this today and let the page die. We will meet again when we are notable to you. Until then I wish you all the very best. -Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momega (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 August 2007
 * 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.