Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Toe Ring

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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Toe Ring

This article is, quite plainly, useless. At bare minimum it should be merged with Toe ring but probably outright deleted. The author of the article has been spamming this article as well as Celtic toe into other articles in an attempt to create a new urban legend. IrishGuy ^talk 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing here to merge as it is unsourced.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article does not cite sources, but I have seen them mentioned locally in tourist information places. Google tends to find them "for sale" Agathoclea 22:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, not really notable. --Coredesat talk 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Britton LaRoche 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think attempting to insult me is really going to help your case. IrishGuy ^talk 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if it was sourced, it would be incredibly non-notable. -- Kicking222 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Celtic toe is vaid, and if there was a popular trend among such people to put a ring on the second toe, ... it's still not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the Backstreet Boys are notable and worthy of an article (as evidenced by the fact you're talking about them.) --Alphachimp ^talk 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Your toe rings "sketch" is quite clearly this image taken from a commercial website [1], flipped horizontally and with a sketch filter applied in a photo manipulation package. Your foot sketch has all the hallmarks of a digital filter as well, though I can't confirm the existence of a copyrighted original. You can't just apply a filter to copyrighted images and claim them as your own work. And besides, the addition of images, correctly copyrighted or otherwise, doesn't affect any claim on an article's notability. ~ Matticus78 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per Kicking222 et al. Pete.Hurd 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above, Alphachimp ^talk 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per IrishGuy. Alun

• I apologize if I came across as brusque, but firstly I was pointing out an apparent hole in your knowledge of what you can and cannot claim ownership of, not attempting to disparage your artistic abilities. And secondly, making thinly-veiled legal threats is not cool. Furthermore, your "slander/libel" ring images are also bordering on WP:ATTACK material. You are only eroding your own credibility here. ~ Matticus78 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this article serves no purpose whatsoever except to promote the author's main 'project' - to push the Celtic toe urban legend.--Nydas 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per IrishGuy and others above. Tapir Terrific 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as this discussion has turned into a flamewar/self-promotion spree, would WP:SNOW apply (even though it's not really a policy)? --Coredesat talk 05:57, 29 June 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.