| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
= Antmjc = Commonly referred to as Antmjc Productions"
Nomination Criteria
G1 Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.
Deletion Options
| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 1 | 1.6 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but deletable by other criteria. | 61 | 95.3 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 2 | 3.1 |
Survey Comments
| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| A7 | 5 |
| A1 | 13 |
| A3 | 7 |
- deletable under the A# criteria for pages that merely repeat the name of a subject
- They have a channel on YouTube (URL= http://www.youtube.com/user/antmjc) with a few subscribers - definitely not notable, suggest PRODing it.
- Unless a quick search reveals a notable company, there is no assertion of notability so could be deleted as nn-company or so short as to give no context.
- Has meaningful content. Should be A7, no content or no context, assuming author's had time to expand. I wouldn't bother doing a Google search for an empty article.
- I'd delete this under A1. Even if there was context, Google is telling me that this is someone's YouTube channel, so it almost certainly is not notable.
Balloonman's analysis
G1 is not appropriate, as virtually everybody agreed.
A1 is not appropriate as the subject is clearly identifiable.
A3 is a possibility as the article doesn't have any meaningful content.
A7 is the best option because it clearly makes no attempt at indicating importance or significance. I would, however, look to see how long the article has been in existence. If the article was just created, I would give the author a chance.
Unless it is a vanity article, keeping an A7 article that attempts to be encyclopedic for a few days does the project no harm---so giving the article a few minutes or hours doesn't hurt the project either. Biting a newbie author, who made the mistake of writing his first article in the mainspace and not his user space, can chase away a potential asset to the project. Overly aggressive use of CSD can cause just as much, if not more damage to Wikipedia than the worst vandal.
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
= Antmjc = Commonly referred to as Antmjc Productions"
Nomination Criteria
G1 Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.
Deletion Options
| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 1 | 1.6 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but deletable by other criteria. | 61 | 95.3 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 2 | 3.1 |
Survey Comments
| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| A7 | 5 |
| A1 | 13 |
| A3 | 7 |
- deletable under the A# criteria for pages that merely repeat the name of a subject
- They have a channel on YouTube (URL= http://www.youtube.com/user/antmjc) with a few subscribers - definitely not notable, suggest PRODing it.
- Unless a quick search reveals a notable company, there is no assertion of notability so could be deleted as nn-company or so short as to give no context.
- Has meaningful content. Should be A7, no content or no context, assuming author's had time to expand. I wouldn't bother doing a Google search for an empty article.
- I'd delete this under A1. Even if there was context, Google is telling me that this is someone's YouTube channel, so it almost certainly is not notable.
Balloonman's analysis
G1 is not appropriate, as virtually everybody agreed.
A1 is not appropriate as the subject is clearly identifiable.
A3 is a possibility as the article doesn't have any meaningful content.
A7 is the best option because it clearly makes no attempt at indicating importance or significance. I would, however, look to see how long the article has been in existence. If the article was just created, I would give the author a chance.
Unless it is a vanity article, keeping an A7 article that attempts to be encyclopedic for a few days does the project no harm---so giving the article a few minutes or hours doesn't hurt the project either. Biting a newbie author, who made the mistake of writing his first article in the mainspace and not his user space, can chase away a potential asset to the project. Overly aggressive use of CSD can cause just as much, if not more damage to Wikipedia than the worst vandal.