Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Dandia


 * 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 Speedy deleted, hoax recreate. The games it referred to haven't even been announced. GarrettTalk 20:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Princess Dandia
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is unsourced speculation about a character who may appear in upcoming video games. This article was deleted via prod once before but then recreated, so I'm sending it through AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC
 * Strong Delete Not only is this crystal balling, it's a clear hoax, as there is NO information about this character, and a VERY poorly written article. Wildthing61476 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was reluctant to label it a hoax. Really, based on the writing, it feels closer to something made up at school one day. Not that it makes it any more encyclopedic, though. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, but unlike a new term or a game made up at school one day, that claims to be fact on an established game series, which to me is a blatant hoax. (Semantics and all that) Wildthing61476 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Why exactly is this not speediable under recreation? Also important to note that the creator of the article was blocked once for inserting dubious material and recreated the article with a note that read: "Please leave this page open. Do not deleted this whole page or you can be blocked by editing Wikipedia Not Michelle 3801, Michelle 7802, Michelle 4903, and Michelle 1004". Pascal.Tesson 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not speedyable because it wasn't deleted via AfD. It was deleted via WP:PROD, and recreating an article that was deleted through the PROD process is treated the same as a contested PROD: the next step in the process is to propose deletion at AfD, which I did. If it is deleted as a result of this AfD, and if it is then recreated, then it is a speedy candidate. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx. Makes sense. Note however that this particular article needs to go asap as it seems to be a clear hoax by a return vandal/prankster and damages the reputation of Wikipedia as the link provided below by N Shar shows. Pascal.Tesson 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately speedy delete A4 only applies if the article has gone through AfD. However, this article is clearly unsourced and a likely hoax. eaolson 02:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per above and per this discussion, which is the ONLY google hit outside of WP+mirrors. --N Shar 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Michelle3801 has been gaming the system with frequent contributions of hoax information, mostly related to Princess Daisy, often through sockpuppets, including articles such as this. It is a shame that so much process is spent dealing with what, to me, is essentially vandalism. Dancter 04:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fictional character. And of the two games listed as her appearing in: one isn't even officially in dvelopment (Mario Kart Wii) and the other we know nothing except that it's in development (Mario Party 8). TJ Spyke 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non-notable. --Ineffable3000 21:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it for things made up.  Further, articles must have verfiable content not composed of original research.  Don't forget that articles should be written in an encyclopedic manner consistent without acceptable standards of style.  Just wanted to see how many policies/guidelines/essays I can link to in my justification.-- danntm T C 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as a crystallized hoax. The article is also very poorly written, and looks like something someone made up in school one day. --Core des at 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, Speedy Delete - Simply apalling article. The Kinslayer 08:07, 19 October 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.
 * 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.