Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall letters

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. Note that CSD G4 only applies if similar content is added; an article could certainly exist at this title if the concerns about original research and verifiability are addressed. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall letters

Original research. NawlinWiki 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & Wikify duh! -- Librarianofages 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please keep your comments civil. Kuru ^talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, as this is a discussion, not a vote, you are expected to explain why you believe the article does not violate the fundamental policy which the nominator believes it violates. "Duh", while expressive, is not exactly informative. — Haeleth Talk 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, entire article seems to be some odd mish-mashed commentary centered around a spam link (wawallletters). Kuru ^talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a mixture of neologism and original research. -- Alias Flood 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR essay that doesn't read like a WP:ENC topic, the surreptitious placement of the website link adds a notch to WP:SPAM in my book. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above reasons. To placate anyone who wants things kept, there might be something that could be added to information on some of the buildings mentioned (the Latin stuff, f'rinstance), although I'd be surprised if it's not there already. BigHaz 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR plus WP:V. Links embedded in article go to

• a photo of a rabbit plaque
• a commercial site selling wall letters for home decorating such as nurseries, etc.
• a long article on The Pantheon-- Rome -126 AD
• an article entitled Couple to Marry At Plantation Where Groom’s African Ancestors Once Labored. KarenAnn 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as WP:OR and WP:V. KarenAnn is right: the links provided are weak and somewhat non sequitor. This article could (and perhaps should) be recreated, as this does seem to be a genuine phenomenae. But as currently written, this smells too much of unverified original research. Delete, unless someone feels ambitious enough to do a complete rewrite and cite some better sources. Scorpiondollprincess 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't look like a genuine phenomenon to me; rather, as the links in the article itself demonstrate, people have always decorated walls with plaques and inscriptions, ever since the invention of writing. I'm pretty sure we'll have many an article on the subject already, and this one doesn't seem to add anything. — Haeleth Talk 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepYou all make excellent points and as the writer of this article I will revisit it and make the recommended changes because I beleive it is very valuable information. I have a degree in art with a concentration in design and the use of typography in our daily lives is extremely interesting to me. I feel it is worth writing about on. Please come back in give your votes again in a few days and see if it is not more to your liking tlob Talk 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Still looks horribly like WP:OR to me, only now it's completely unsourced. Paddles ^T_C 13:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above WP:OR and WP:V. Massmato 15:47, 22 July 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.