Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violation of Innocence


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation_of_Innocence
Delete. Probable hoax. And, as the article says "project is extremely secretive, no public announcements or comments have been made", this would make it unverifiable. Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't too secret, it would be crystal ball stuff. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No verification possible without press releases or other media mentions. Until such an announcement is made this is crystal ball material.   (aeropagitica)   16:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad faith nomination by someone who couldn't even be bothered to leave a note on my talk page - "Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised." People=Shit 17:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles simply because the creator of the article wasn't notified of proposed deletion. This would have been a good place for you to explain why the article is not a hoax, how we would verify this, etc.  --Xyzzyplugh 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't expect an article to be kept for that reason, but being notified my work was up for deletion would have been nice. I'll address the verifiability below. People=Shit 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable.  Noisy | Talk 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, unless author can produce sources to address concerns raised. My concern is that there is no evidence this supergroup exists.--Isotope23 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources can be provided. —  orion  eight  (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. &mdash;thames 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete just alone for implying that Slayer would work with Linkin Park and Bob Rock. // Gargaj 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unverifiable (and damn unlikely) Dead 06:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looks like I can't save this. You're right - there are no published sources I can cite, due to the nature of the project. The information was obtained personally. So I can understand arguments from a verifiability viewpoint. I'm less happy about editors voting for delete as 'hoax' and 'unlikely'. As for the guy voting delete 'for implying that Slayer would work with Linkin Park and Bob Rock', you're exactly the reason the project is under wraps, as you're quite willing to hate the very idea of radically different groups working together. I will say this - Wikipedia is going to be left looking very stupid when the project reaches fruition and you won't have any information on it. People=Shit 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If and when that time comes, someone will add it, rest assured. PJM 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * People=, first of all, the article did look to me as if it were a hoax. I will take your word that it is not.  However, this doesn't change anything regarding keeping this article.  Encyclopedias are not the place to publish secret information that is not available to the public.  Once this project becomes publicly known, written about in magazines or on major websites, we will end up with an article about it.  If you want to leak information about it out ahead of time to someone, there are plenty of online magazines and other websites which would be appropriate places to do so.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above - unverifiable/unlikely Senner 03:35, 27 February 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.