Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peartowers


 * 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 (normal speed) - Yomangani talk 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Peartowers
Speedy deleted, reposted, prodded and speedy-tagged again, but this time around sort of asserts notability. What do you think? Procedural nomination, no opinion. Sandstein 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) The reasoning why hoax is not speedy is, or at least ought to be, that this is not the sort of judgment a single person should make, as its basically saying "I have never heard of it." DGG 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - doesn't even exist. 3 unrelated non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a speedy deletion criterion. It takes more than on or two pairs of eyes to reliably determine that something is unverifiable. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete apparent hoax. No sources.--Kchase T 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per MER-C Akihabara 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought being a hoax was not a speediable offense. I am routinely told this when I make a comment like "speedy it, it doesn't exist."--Dmz5 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true. Hoaxes are explicitly listed at WP:CSD.--Kchase T 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However, blatant hoaxes may count as vandalism and thus are speediable. MER-C 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to be a jerk, but who says? I mean, check out Factory: The Musical.  Is this speedyable?  I once got a rather curt message from an admin who chewed me out a bit for using that kind of reasoning during an AfD debate, so I have been eager to see it applied consistently.--Dmz5 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see who says, its in the criteria, but nonetheless, it's tough to be consistent on this one--Dmz5 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The key words are "blatant" and "may". Taking an existing article about a figure, replacing the name with something else, and then posting it as a new name under that new name is a blatant hoax.  (People have already done this, most recently with .)  But something that is not self-evidently a hoax, but that requires some amount of actual checking to determine that it is a hoax, is not a blatant hoax.  One of the very purposes of AFD is to enable multiple editors to do the research, allowing one editor to spot what another may have missed. Uncle G 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So then, is this article a speedy candidate or no?--Dmz5 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete There was a link to the page at some point, but it has no alexa rating, fails WP:WEB, and I have had a difficult time trying to keep a speedy tag on it, since they were being removed improperly without an admin checking it over.Booshakla 08:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Small amateur blog or kid fun site for one of the several towns called Ashton in the UK. Fails WP:WEB for no proper references in the article that verify notability. Tubezone 15:15, 18 December 2006 (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.