Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octo-sloth


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 08:54Z 

Octo-sloth

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem notable. Was nominated for speedy deletion and then contested.Hondasaregood 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFT. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stephen who found the shortcut faster than myself. --Tikiwont 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Save Why not? Slippery Jim D'Griz 22:35, 13 March 2007
 * Uhh...I think you need to review WP:N.Hondasaregood 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary; an entire guideline has been dedicated to these such occurrences (WP:NFT) N SR 77  ( Talk  22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete and comment - I have read the article's history page. It was created today, nominated for speedy delete a couple hours later, the speedy delete was contested by the author who promised he would add references, and then brought here to Afd yet a few hours later. I find 0 ghits for the graphic novel "Donnie's Adventures" and 0 ghits for "octo-sloth", so I vote for delete. However, this has all been a bit rapid, hasn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah fine. Delete it. Slippery Jim D'Griz 7:30, 14 March 2007
 * comment - okay, the above person was the contester of the speedy delete. If he's now changed his position, can it now be speedy-deleted? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - Yes. I've decided that your right and the occto-sloth does not merit a wikipedia page of it's own. Sorry Slippery Jim D'Griz 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, so this article was made up in school one day.  But this trend of nominating articles for deletion the same day of creation (in one instance that I have noted, a mere two minutes after creation) should be nipped in the bud.  Another user (I can't remember who, now) commented that when articles are new is the time that users are able to catch them, before they get lost in the shuffle.  I say, if you think an article isn't going to amount to much based on its first save, make a note of it on a list somewhere, and come back in a month.  Don't nominate it for deletion because you're too lazy to come back later.    . . . I mean no disrespect to the nominator in this particular discussion.  I'm just feeling irritable about the trend.   ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - let me be the first to stand beside you in front of the firing squad - I agree totally. This particular article certainly merited a speedy delete, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:50, 15 March 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.