Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Symbol


 * 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

War Symbol

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A proposed opposite to the "V" sign for peace. No references - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) *Delete I would hope that the original author would return to provide an assertion of notability. Nothing related on google for either war symbol or war gesture. Granted I've never heard of it, but I cna't seem to find it either. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As a neologism and a made up thing.  TN ‑ X - Man  11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Table I am changing my mind per WP:BITE. This is a new account and this is that account's first article. There are multiple edits, and a note on the talk page of the user's intent. I think that the appropriate response in this case would be to point to the notability criterion and reopen this at a later date if the author fails to either produce a useable article or a reasonable starting point for one. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not suggesting that an obviously unacceptable article be kept around simply because the author is new, as that's absolutely apalling. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given a combination of three factors, that's exactly what I am doing. 1) The author is new, and so should be given a guidance rather than thwomping. 2) The author and the article have been on wikipedia for less than 14 hours as of this posting. Rushing to close an article with a responsive author within 24 hours without postings to the article or author's talk page is a bit premature. 3) The author appears to have been responsive to the AfD posting. However, given the length of the article and the ease of recreation, I won't shed any tears if it goes away. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable original research. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nominator nailed it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. The creator of the symbol (Travis Walstrom) and the creator of the article (User:TWallyT09) are surely one and the same.  D C E dwards 1966  15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 3 lines of unreferenced text, with nothing else in the article. --Hamster X (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources. no claim of notability. --T-rex 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced and by all indications unsourcable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No source, no google / yahoo hits that I could find, appears to be totally made-up.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, original research, practically made up in school one day. J I P  | Talk 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This probably wasn't made up in school one day, but yet is is non-notable per all of our guidelines. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:43, 12 June 2008 (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.