Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortigage Tehas


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mortigage Tehas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Band formed just this year; zero non-wiki ghits for the band; zero gnews hits. Borderline G3 speedy. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost speediable as nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete. Actually, I think User:DanielRigal is right; I mean, read this line: a death metal band hailing from an unknown land somewhere below Hell.  That's not given as a marketing line, that's text providing ostensible bio info.  It's WP:NONSENSE, so someone speedy it out.  Un  sch  ool  17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retract the "speedy". I'm reading WP:CSD, and I guess that the fact that it's clearly fiction does not qualify it for NONSENSE.  (I'm still learning.)  Un  sch  ool  17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm surprised this wasn't speedily deleted.  It is about a non-notable band (zero results from an internet search) and contains dubious information, such as in Mortigage Tehas.  As noted above, the description that it hails "from an unknown land somewhere below Hell" does not bode well either.  --Aka042 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as silly hoax. I see no evidence that this band even exists, especially given the author's statement that the band comes "from an unknown land somewhere below Hell." In fact this is probably speediable. There is no claim to notability in the article. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article on this subject, and isn't even the start of such an article. Given the claim that some or all of the article is "exaggerated nonsense we're using as a gimmick", it's clear that the authors' intention here was not to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, and that accuracy and providing the reader with correct information was not the authors' aim.  This is clearly an intentional hoax.  Without prejudice to any future proper article that actually falls within the remit of an encyclopaedia, delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (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.