Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sniper and Cranes


 * 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  Speedied. This obviously is not, by any reasonable standard, an encyclopedia article. I have left an appropriate message on the creator's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sniper and Cranes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Essay comparing two short stories.  ceran  thor 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Author admits it was a homework assignment. On the other hand, maybe it's not due until next week, in which case, call it a legitimate stub, put a "rescue" tag on it and see if someone can help this composition get an A+. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the article doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.  ceran  thor 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I respectfully disagree (although I appreciate that you've called, correctly, that I should be more specific). I'd say it falls under G7 ("author requests deletion") or G3 (vandalism, since a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to be one's personal scratchpad for homework).  I think that WP:SPEEDY needs to be used more often than it is, particularly when there's no reasonable doubt that an article is improper.   Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's neither of those. It could meet a PROD tag, but I specialize in speedy deletion and therefore don't meddle in things I don't know too well.  ceran  thor 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOR, on the fact that it is making an unsourced comparisons of two books. Personally, I think it could have got away with a WP:PROD...  Fei noh a   Talk, My master 03:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. It's so obvious that it should be deleted, I don't think I even need a reason. But I'll say per Mandsford's reasons, whihc were absolutely brilliant. Is it okay if I add part of that quote to my userpage? Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't meet the CSD.  ceran  thor 23:07, 24 September 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.