Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of Existence (talker) (3rd nomination)

: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. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Planes of Existence (talker)]]=

AfDs for this article:
    {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of }}

:{{la|Planes of Existence (talker)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of Existence (talker) (3rd nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Planes of Existence (talker)}})

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by {{user|JBsupreme}} with the rationale "part of a giant walled garden, none of the sources are reliable third party." Article was at AfD twice before and is therefore ineligible for prod, so I'm relisting here.

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. My fault for not noticing the earlier AfD listings from 2005 and 2008. As I have stated, none of the sources amount to reliable/non-trivial from third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hate to say this about a piece of history, no matter how obscure or inconsequential, especially Internet-related history, but I just don't think there's much to be found about this. What little we have are primary accounts of it, and most of the links in the article are currently broken. I'd be very inclined to change my vote if someone can come up with a secondary source or two about it. Macai (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the informal sourcing provided by the links. This is the sort of material that Wikipedia has long specialised in DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Please substantiate your claims for once. We don't specialize in anything and this article grossly violates our standards for reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete- As Macai notes, all the sources are primary and some are broken. Coverage in secondary sources is required, and this just hasn't got any. Reyk YO! 12:50, 5 March 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.