Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying shoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flying shoes

Flying shoes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:OR; reads like the begining of a list, but has nothing. SeizureDog 01:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with this article. It just needs expansion and cleanup. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: But it's been this way for over a year, it's not going to get either of them. If somehow the article could be relevent, it can be remade.--SeizureDog 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Could do with a few sources and/or external links as well. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete has no potential to be anything other than a stub. Wikipedia is not a place for finding paper-thin connections between cartoon humor, greek mythology and Star Trek science fiction technology. •Elomis• 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As above Gretnagod 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Users should recreate if Flying shoes somehow become culturally significant as a symbol for something. Copysan 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is weird. This entry is explained in 53 words, but jumps from one topic to another. ??? What did I just say? I don't really understand. From Hermes to Star trek, to cartoon humor? This is silly. TO put it short, no explanatory whatsoever. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 04:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. - Che Nuevara 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecesary generalisation and original research. Westenra 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. There seems to be a (bad) precedent that motifs (which itself needs improvement [1]) don't deserve articles, but there's no real content here and I can't find any sources to turn it into a real stub. Keep if someone finds a source. BCoates 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if the article is updated soon. Articles that are virtually empty are useless for research. If not, Delete. Ichbinbored talk 11:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT, WP:OR, lame. Terence Ong 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't wait for updates. This article has been around since September 2005 and has not yet taken off. Nor will it. Emeraude 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible place for a List of fictional means of flying that would include carpets, wings, etc. but this is pointless. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Each of the named elements exist, but the gluing them together is original research. -- Whpq 21:29, 5 December 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.