Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovatics


 * 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 redirect and protect. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lovatics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was a redirect for a while, in the past day a number of IP editors replaced redirect with other content. This content is entirely unsourced and does not meet WP:GNG. Article should be replaced with redirect and perhaps semi protected. Zad68 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

redirect or (redirect and semi-protect) Non-encyclopedic content without real possibility for expansion. Basically just a neologism, which should be avoided for articles (WP:NOTNEO). A redirect would placate the people behind traffic to this term and semi-protection would avoid future problems, and is, in my opinion, the best course of action. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect If we don't have a page for the Beliebers, why Lovato's fans will have it? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  06:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect I made the redirect hoping to avoid this. :-/ "Lovatics" may warrant mention in the Demi Lovato article, but not as a standalone article. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly... if "Lovatics" insist on overwriting the redirect with content, here is their chance to show the content meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If this AfD closes with Redirect, further overwrites of the redirect can be reverted ad infinitum without fear of the 3RR by pointing to this AfD, and with appropriate vandalism warnings to the editors.  At least the semi-protection is definitely helping. Zad68 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is a case of WP:BEANS... if the redirect weren't there maybe it wouldn't have attracted the editors in the first place? Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (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.