Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Existence

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Invisible Existence, speedy'd but recreated as Invisible existence
Band vanity. I wish them the best, but for now delete. Gazpacho 00:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Delete - David Gerard 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * couldn't find anything about them on Google, but they are pretty huge in the city they are from...just not nationally Stancel 01:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Seems to have been speedied as "vanity", following the removal of the VfD notice by the IP who created the article originally. History:

Deletion log * 13:03, 18 May 2005 Golbez deleted "Invisible Existence?" (vanity) Page history * 12:54, 18 May 2005. . Ravenhull (Vanity edit. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium for up and coming bands. Earn your entry with success (and I wish you luck with your endevours)) * 12:52, 18 May 2005. . 24.70.95.203    * 12:51, 18 May 2005. . 24.70.95.203    * 12:51, 18 May 2005. . 24.70.95.203    * 10:11, 18 May 2005. . Gazpacho * 10:09, 18 May 2005. . 24.70.95.203


 * Gazpacho's edit flagged it for VfD, the next edit removed the VfD notice, Ravenhull subsequently flagged it for speedy, and Golbez then deleted it. Unless someone asks here or on votes for undeletion for it to be undeleted, I'm not inclined to, as it's in many ways the article's creator who has brought this upon themselves, and I don't think this article is all that important in itself. But it's a clear breach of speedy delete policy IMO. No vote. Andrewa 10:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, but since the article wouldn't survive VfD anyway I don't really want to drag it through VfU mechanics. But if it happens more than once, we should bring it up with the deletor. Radiant_* 11:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Andrewa's right. For my part, I've seen a lot of CSD's given as "vanity."  Vanity isn't a speedy criterion.  I haven't always (to my shame) gone to the nominating author and explained this, but folks need to know that things that violate the deletion policy don't usually qualify as speedies. Geogre 11:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has been recreated at Invisible existence. Should I speedy it? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Re-creation of a voted deleted page is a CSD.  &mdash;msh210 21:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, I know... I was just apprehensive given the fact that the status of the original deletion was still being debated to some degree here. Should we just wait until this deletion passes normally after the week, and delete then? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both, but wait until the VfD period expires before deleting or redeleting either. The VfD notice on Invisible existence now points to this discussion; I mightn't have done it quite that way but it can work. It only becomes a CSD as recreated material after a valid deletion, and we haven't had that yet. I'm still not proposing to undelete Invisible Existence, but I couldn't object to it happening even without going through VfU, as the deletion was not according to the proper process. MWOT. Andrewa 01:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - stock band vanity. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.