Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glaxis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. Kimchi.sg 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glaxis
Non-notable movie script that was never produced StuartF 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Fails WP:V. --Coredesat 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the article carefully. It actually discusses two separate subjects, only one of which is a script. Uncle G 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- True, but the 2nd topic is a software program that is "still in its beta stages", which I think is also not notable StuartF 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is irrelevant. The article cites no sources and I can find nothing about anything known as "Glaxis Alerts". This makes it unverifiable. But deletion is not required to fix this problem. Simply apply the sword of verifiability to the article and rewrite it to be about verifiable things known as Glaxis, such as the subsidiary of PPG Industries that deals with back-ordering [1][2][3]. This does not require an administrator to delete the article. Uncle G 12:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- True, but the 2nd topic is a software program that is "still in its beta stages", which I think is also not notable StuartF 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neither of the current articles are notable or verifiable, so they have no business being. The fact another article can be written with the same title has no effect on that. If no one writes that other article soon enough, UncleG's method would leave this unverifiable crap forever. - Mgm|(talk) 07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't. The article could be rewritten now. Indeed, it could have been rewritten instead of being nominated for AFD in the first place. Uncle G 10:03, 22 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.
