Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Zeppelin


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Zeppelin

 * — (View AfD)

Originally marked as a speedy per CSD G1 (which it clearly isn't). Wikipedia is not for things made up one day; no assertion of notability; no references or sources. --  Merope  13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Maybe a comprimise should be made. maybe this should be put in a sub catagory about fan works, or Music syncronisticy theories?
 * Delete, unreferenced original research. Demiurge 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clear original research lacking all verifiable sources. In other words, exactly per the above. Gwernol 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above, and nothing at all in any search engine (Google, Google News, Yahoo, Live Search, Ask) Jayden54 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and probably should have been speedied in the first place. There is no evidence that leads me to think that this phenomenon, illustrated by original research, is any more notable than its creator(s), who would almost certainly not fulfill the criteria to exempt them from a speedy deletion under the "bio" clause of CSD. --Dr Excessus 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense -- Selmo  (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * does the page become credible if one of the wiki editors test it out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MNiederle343 (talk • contribs).
 * I assume by "test it out" you mean a Wiki editor joins this church? No, even if someone did it would be just their word, which is not considered a reliable source for this purpose. You need independent published sources that discuss the Church Gwernol 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Church"??? are we talking about the same things? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.244.92.26 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, sorry, got my AfDs muddled up. Replace "Church" with "experience", the point still stands. Having an editor try out the whole thing still leaves us with an editor's personal experience. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable which means that a reader can go look up what is claimed in a reputable, independent source to confirm it. So for example, if the New York Times writes an article about Lord of the Zeppelin you can include it. Gwernol 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There are endless ways to recombine music and movies and they can't all have articles -- just the notable ones. MNiederle343, credibility is established by reliable, independent sources, not by Wikipedia editors personally checking things out. If we allowed editors to vouch for things... well, Wikipedia would have serious problems. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not Synchronicity when you're picking the Led Zep song that mentions Gollum to play when Gollum is on screen, it's a fan made soundtrack. Static Universe 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 06:06, 9 January 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.