Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Brutal


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ 123Writer talk 00:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Full Brutal

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Single review on article from what appears to be a blog. A peruse through Google finds no other sources which illustrate notability other than reviews by other authors on their blogs/websites (nothing in a newspaper, literary journal, etc.). 123Writer talk 22:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 123Writer talk 22:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Concern This article was nominated for deletion less than 90 minutes after it was started. There was no discussion first at Talk:Full Brutal. Nobody reached out to the article's creator at User talk:ForeverANDeverANDnever. They're a new editor. No tags were added to the article noting problems.
 * Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These are valid concerns, however this does not change the fact the article has no current notability. Even if the creator was reached out to, there would be little they could do to keep the article in the mainspace. Do you suggest Draftifying the article instead? 123Writer talk 04:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, 1TWO3Writer those certainly are very valid concerns. Did you really have to move so fast? Why not engage with the author? It just seems like the nice thing to do.


 * I can't write an article in 90 minutes straight. If I have to break for a meal or some sleep, I take even longer. I think either one of us would be upset if this happened to us.


 * Perhaps the editor has more in mind for the article. Perhaps they know of refs you don't. Honestly, I'm more worried about losing a new editor than this article.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not engage with the author? It just seems like the nice thing to do. The nice thing to do is not always the right thing to do. In this situation, I was presented with an article that, on a Google search, showed no notability. If they or anyone else can present notability, then the article can be kept.
 * I can't write an article in 90 minutes straight. If I have to break for a meal or some sleep, I take even longer. I think either one of us would be upset if this happened to us. The drafting process exists for this reason. All of my articles have existed as a draft prior to publication. The editor seems to be aware of this process as shown in the AFC declination on their talk page. They decided to bypass said process and publish the page to the mainspace ergo arguing that said page is "ready".
 * Perhaps the editor has more in mind for the article. Perhaps they know of refs you don't. Honestly, I'm more worried about losing a new editor than this article. We can speculate what the editor has or has not, but the article presented is what I or anyone else has to go on. Just for future reference for anyone reading this, said article was only nominated ten minutes prior to the ninety minute "deadline". As for losing a new editor, while I appreciate your kindness for the individual in-question, if they cannot handle having an article deleted, which is something I or the vast majority of editors have experienced, then that is something they have to work on or we cannot expect said person to be a mature addition to the Wikipedia community.
 * I would also rather not speculate on the editor's character or possible reaction to the AFD: for all we know, they do not respond, they do respond and agree with you, myself, or someone else, or something else entirely. They have been notified of the discussion, it is up to them to argue their point-of-view beyond you or I speaking for them. 123Writer talk 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is the speed with which you took this article to AfD. And there's no conflict between "nice" and "right" in this case. There is no community-based guideline or imperative that you have to delete something so fast. There are guidelines that say you need to use the talk page.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep AFDing something this fast should never be done.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2023 (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.