Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skullptura


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Skullptura

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources given in article. Searching produces blogs, forums, numerous torrent sites, downloads, "warez" sites, a YouTube video showing how to play a game "ripped" by Skullptura, etc, but nothing that comes anywhere remotely near Wikipedia's standards as a source. (Article was prodded, and prod was removed by an anonymous editor without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per James. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7, no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can find no coverage in a reliable source. Speedy deletion would probably have been appropriate too.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that A7 is applicable here; however, since it was previously tagged and declined by another admin I won't delete it without contacting him. (Also: no sources seem to be available so he fails GNG too.) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that decline the article's subject has changed from a blog to a person, but A7 covers both. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I removed the speedy because I saw 1,000s of Ghits, and arguably the text said in so many words that it was notable. I disagreed with the speedy, but agreed it had little in terms of WP:RS, so I prodded it.  Did I make an error?  Sometimes Prodding or AfD allows editors a few days to find obscure sources. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think you made an error. If you have reasonable doubt then it is quite right to remove speedy, even if you think it is likely that the article should be deleted: it is right to allow more time in these "reasonable doubt" cases. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with James. I'd personally have probably A7ed it but I agree your argument makes sense and wouldn't say you were in error. The fact that we disagreed means PROD/AfD rather than speedy was indeed the best way to go. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Likely created as a vanity article by a single-purpose account. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:41, 15 February 2010 (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.