Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jfdd


 * 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio of. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jfdd

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a personal essay failing WP:NOT#OR, an opinion piece, and a WP:SOAPBOX article, although it does contain a few references to notable topics. Admittedly, the rather blurry picture of the editor's tattoo is a nice touch. Michael Devore 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a shame that this doesn't fall into any speedy category as far as I can tell (probably closest to A7), but it's an obvious delete. Proposed deletion might have been most appropriate in this circumstance. JavaTenor 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, I would have unabashedly prod'ed the article until recently. But of late my views on what are&mdash;to me&mdash;clear article removal candidates seem to be in increasing conflict with rather more inclusionist editors. In response, I have adjusted how conservative I am with deletion candidates and levels if there is any hint of notable content contained in the article. (Plus it seemed a shame for such a nice tattoo to go away unnoticed.) I also strongly agree with you that speedy deletion should get category expansion for such cases as these.Michael Devore 05:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Incredibly Strong Delete The article is an original first-person opinionated essay about a novel, non-notable subject, which is an invention of the author, with the possible intention to advance a position or idea. Deletion seems utterly obvious, too bad it's not speedy criteria. Calgary 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete copyvio + nonsense and appropriately tagged Corpx 05:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, not to mention that it's just plain nonsense. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Some people think me among the more inclusionist editors, but I prefer to say that I and the others here simply use proper criteria and established process. This article is a trivial, ill-conceived, totally useless essay. It should be deleted. But it is not a speedy because those are value judgments that more than one or two people should make. It would do for prod also, because any good deletion reason is sufficient for prod, but prod only works if not opposed. I would have tried it--I often do try prod for articles like this--because there seems to be a good chance that the author might not have defended it.
 * But anyway, Corpx has found it's a total copyvio of a page on the author's website, and can be speedied as such. I'm not completely happy about that, because I think it obvious that the author meant to contribute it here, but for a worthless article like this I'm not going to hunt him down to ask, especially if we then have to say a few days later that we're deleting it anyway. DGG (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2007 (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.