Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drone Forest


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Drone Forest

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Stub with insufficient context to identify the subject; no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have added a link to drone music that provides some idea of what the context is but I can't see notability or verifiability. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--and given that this is barely sensible, perhaps a speedy. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete spam drive by User:Davieblint see also, , . No evidence of notability; though far from the only offender in this regard. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you for this DanielRigal, yours is the only positive response and it's both constructive and welcoming. However, I believe user Drmies needs to a) respect that I have been here for about five minutes and b) remember the rule "no personal attacks" and personally (speaking as a person) I find the comment "this is barely sensible" extremely hurtful and insensitive.  Back to the original objection from Kurt Raschke, again, without compassion for a novice user, he slates my first-ever article for instantaneous deletion, the article is based on factual information and I wrote it in good faith, but, he rejects it out of hand, and damns it less than five minutes after it was born.  That's not welcoming either. And how on earth am I to just "suddenly understand" "assertion of notability" (surely one of the most subjective concepts ever conceived) or know HOW TO provide these assertions for the chosen topic?  Also - generally, I feel it would be more constructive, not to mention more courteous, to HELP me make this article a SUCCESS instead of standing around criticising!  I think that both the "welcoming" rule and the "no personal attacks" rules have been at least bent, if not broken, by your various unthinking, callous remarks.  TELL ME HOW TO FIX THIS SO THE ARTICLE CAN STAY.  Please.  Thank you.  Davie Blint, New Year's Day, NOT a happy editor. By the way....what the heck is a "spam drive" and why am I accused of it?  And I see you have so kindly pointed out my other contributions, which suggests you would like to delete those out of hand as well, WITHOUT thinking or considering that they, and I, have VALUE. Less criticism, more helpful, welcoming, kind remarks would be nice. I believe that by calling my contribution "spam", and not trying to help, and being nothing but critical and even mean, that you are acting like the Wiki police, not like members of a helpful, CO-OPERATING, editing TEAM.  Am I wrong? Please discuss. 86.158.66.233 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)(talk) 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)]]) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're protesting a too much. Clearly from what you write in your final few sentences there you actually do know what Semitransgenic means.  And a comment that an article is barely sensisible says nothing about you as a person at all.  To assert otherwise is a distraction tactic. Notability is far from subjective, as the explanation already linked-to above (Notability) explains.  What you need, per the definition of notability, are multiple independent published works that discuss this subject in depth from identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  Show that they exist, rather than trying to play the much-overused "Your comment on the article is a personal attack." card.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant nothing personal--'sensible' here means 'intelligible'; this article is not encyclopedic in that it doesn't have the organization of one, and I simply don't understand what it is trying to say. I'll not rub salt by explaining how; suffice it to say that the article does not meet the requirements. But that is not a personal remark; we have all had criticism leveled at our work here. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 January 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.