Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Extension


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Female Extension

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

The Article in question is quite biased. The sources listed are all written by the artist, miss Sollfrank. Searching Google has yeilded a lack of third party sources. User:Frandlthing 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete as a promotion for a non-notable... thing. --Damiens .rf 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article for non-notable whatever it is. (Formatting issues in AfD also fixed.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:53, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Check the talk page for some IP rambling in defense of the article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment While the art project may have notability, it is impossible to prove without additional scholarly sources. The apperent lack of sources unaffiliated with Sollfrank and her artwork makes an extremely difficult task of editing this entry to reduce bias. The article, as well as the sources, are clearly written from the standpoint of a supporter of "Female Extension" and not a neutral art critic. The focus of the sources is on the purpose of (more specifically the political statement made by) the project, not the overall quality or artistic merit. Anyone can make a political statement and then create a webpage about it, but that does not classify it as having either verifiability or notability. It would seem that this entry was made in an attempt to lend credibility to the project itself, rather than to document the existance and notibility of Female Extension 65.26.156.135 User:Frandlthing 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Not a lot in the way of available sources regarding the subject.  It may be notable, but it doesn't seem to be verifiable on a large scale.  Celarnor Talk to me  01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. Lack of reliable 3rd party sources. And notability doesn't seem established in the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of reliable sources, could be notable but no sources to prove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain-tucker (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (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.