Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella V 2nd Nomination
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. Dakota 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Isabella V
It didn't become any more notable since 2003, and now with the 'moved' site officially dead, no point in keeping this. Also it was a hoax after all. timecop 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Either a hoax or someone who fails WP:BIO. Either way, off with her head (delete). B.Wind 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to three editors in the previous AFD discussion, closed only 2 weeks ago, the references section of the article demonstrates that xe satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Please explain why you disagree. Uncle G 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly - the articles in question indicate that either Isabella V is a hoax or an Internet meme. While I would not be as coarse as the writer of the Esquire article, there is a telling quotation on the first page: Are you halfwits actually buying into this garbage?. Sorry, but blogged hoaxes don't make noteworthy Internet memes. Oh, by the way, the "official" site link is now dead, it seems. B.Wind 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being a documented hoax or meme does not affect whether something satisfies or fails to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. You yourself have just cited a non-trivial published work on the subject, a 9-page magazine feature article. Uncle G 10:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that User:Timecop is on a mission: User:Timecop/The war on blogs. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly - the articles in question indicate that either Isabella V is a hoax or an Internet meme. While I would not be as coarse as the writer of the Esquire article, there is a telling quotation on the first page: Are you halfwits actually buying into this garbage?. Sorry, but blogged hoaxes don't make noteworthy Internet memes. Oh, by the way, the "official" site link is now dead, it seems. B.Wind 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to three editors in the previous AFD discussion, closed only 2 weeks ago, the references section of the article demonstrates that xe satisfies the WP:BIO criteria. Please explain why you disagree. Uncle G 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not a notable hoax. Danny Lilithborne 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, cannot pass the 25 year test.
- Delete per above. This is the 2nd nomination. Earlier AfD is here. Eusebeus 14:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Scienter 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Got articles in Esquire, Wired, and a German magazine. That's notable, per Wikipedia:Notability. If it was proven a hoax after all, that can be added to the article, but it doesn't make it less notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - maybe speedy delete. advertising for a dead website. - Femmina 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Covered by notable publications as mentioned by AnonEMouse. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per AnonEMouse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. What's our motto ? Ah, yes, "Verifiability, not Truth". Fake or not, this is notable in the Uncle-G-notability-is-not-subjective sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete According to the above comment, Wikipedia's motto is to spread lies. Let's not let Wikipedia's dream of hate and lies go any further.--Amanduhh 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User's 10th contribution to the Wikipedia, all previous ones being to other articles for deletion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. The presence of references only makes me question the validity of the supposed "reliable sources" that documented this. --- RockMFR 07:24, 3 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.
