Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeleton garlands

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 All speedied by author's request. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeleton garlands

Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It and the other articles are entirely trivial, and discussion with the creator has failed to establish agreement, so I am placing them here for full peer review and comment. During discussions it has been suggested by another editor that these articles may attract link spam as Halloween approaches Fiddle Faddle 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Skeleton garlands is deleted as speedy for CSD G7 (author requested deletion) --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The other pages nominated under this rationale are:

1. Skeleton garlandes a redirect page that was a typo and really the creator should speedy, and will be redundant if the primary page is deleted
2. Halloween yard
3. Squeaky rat
4. Animated coffin
5. Self opening coffin a redirect page which will be redundant if the target page is deleted

[I am unsure how to flag the redirect pages so have included them here]. This nomination is now complete Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: no independent references provided - see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research WP:OR, even if it is true, but instead to report what other reputable people say. Will reconsider if sources are provided. Stephen B Streater 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources provided User:Yy-bo 19:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't check sources for validity on my current Internet connection. Changing to captain for now. Stephen B Streater 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Note The links in the articles are minimal. At least two of them are to sites whose interest in Halloween is commercial - they are selluing stuff. Those links are borderline WP:SPAM. The Squeaky Rat article has no citations, at all, not even questionable ones. The main arguments in favour of retention are rhetoric, not factual, and wikipedia is not built upion rehteoric, but upon citable, sigificant research of others, not Original research. If the articles can be shown to be notable articles about notable items or concepts than I will have no hesitation in withdrawing nominations for those articles. So far I have seen nothing to change my mind. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Final note I have no interest to wrestle about rethorics. Your nomination about commercial equals spam is just not right. The Afd is closed by db author, a legitimate opt-out. There are loads of much worse articles, which require argumentation efforts. User:Yy-bo 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Note Since you as author have opted to clear out the articles with a speedy deletion, let's just do that and every redirect page and category associated with them. But please do not just recreate them in the way you have stated in your speedy nomination where you say "The given reason is: author request. reformat 3 articles into one userspace article. afd nomination looses too much clarity." There is no clarity in any of this series of articles and a further article of this nature will simply be a collection of lack of clarity. Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - Sorry i do not have unlimited time to perform rethorics with you. What will be created: 1 (one) article called halloween yard, if it turns out to be expandable/improveable enough. There are other questionable articles in the need of Afd. Authors should speedy sometimes, more authors should speed if it turns out to become an argumentation about the style of previous arguments, crystalballing about future edits. I am always happy to provide more clarity, if any need be use my talk page, ar the article talk. User:Yy-bo 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all The topics of the articles Halloween yard and Animated coffin are already adequately described in other articles about halloween attractions. The use of rats and skeletons as part of the holiday decor already mentioned in Halloween traditions and I see no need for expansion. BigE1977 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note please that the articles' creator/major contributor has suggested on my talk page that I have chosen the weakest article as the lead article for this nomination. Hindsight says that may well appear to be the case, but I simply opened each of them and chose the tab on my browser that was the nearest. There was no malice in this nomination, no sneaky tricks, nothing underhand. To make this clear, please, when commenting on this nomination, review each of the articles. I have asked the major contributor to comment here on this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The articles have been good faith creations. However, i agree skeleton garlands was a weak article, not expandable. Certainly you edit in good faith as it looks. It does not belong here, however, because of your repeated quests to read the On notability essay, i have created one myself called on deletion. Link from my user page. I still hope the halloween articles to be expandable, and the external site is, well, somehow noteable. Squeaky rats are questionable too, but same thing other toy articles: not really that exapandable. By the way i am an individual, i do not edit in the name of any organisation. I am doing it for personal enlightment. User:Yy-bo
    • The articles seem interesting, but look a bit like your personal impression. Can you find published sources for your descriptions? Stephen B Streater 22:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Several 100's of websites. It is an internet phenomena. Better say, it is documentated on the internet. I have spend a certain amount of time to research halloween on the internet. Guess there are not photo books. I have another link in mind, to a site with 100's of projects, animated and not animated. I do not believe it is non-noteable. User:Yy-bo 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not much more than a paragraph to be said about each; merge with Halloween traditions. --McGeddon 12:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference Wikipedia:External_links Your edit is not reasonable. It is not a business/advertising website. User:Yy-bo 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - If you're referring to the commercial link I removed from Halloween yard, this has nothing to do with this AfD discussion. --McGeddon 00:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - It is not an advert site. The site contains some merchandizing. The removal makes me believe to see a little over-enthusiasm to keep wikipedia itself non-commercial. There is no rule not to link to commercial sites. Following the usggestion of another wikipedian, statements about the article are to be made: here, or at the article talk page. Anyway i am going to end this discussion by merging into one single article. User:Yy-bo 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Trivial though these subjects may be, and poorly written though they are, there is room for expansion. Squeaky rat should be renamed Squeaky toy since no since general article on them exists. Halloween yard and Animated coffin are subjects not dealt with in Halloween traditions. Since these articles aren't exactly stubs, I think they should be left to stand, although cleaned up. wikipediatrix 22:58, 11 September 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.