Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen lines

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--JForget 00:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen lines

Stephen lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Uncited, unverified article apparently about a character from a fable. Not enough context to quite make heads or tails of it. Ginkgo100^talk 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was speedily deleted as patent nonsense, but I restored it because it clearly does not qualify as patent nonsense. Please do not speedy delete. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. Unworthy of inclusion in current state. Crazylikeafoxx 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As Ginkgo100 said. I couldn't make head nor tale/tail of it. Pig^man 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Mea culpa, I did the speedy nom for it being nonsense. My research indicated it had no identifiable basis and seemed to be nonsense in a general sense but most definitely not nonsense in a very specific WP:CSD#G1 way. My apologies. Pig^man 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is a Medina High School on the Isle of Wight with a Director of Arts named Stephen Lines. A Marcus Gill teaches there as well. The Isle of Wight Youth Trust website is illustrated by Adam Brown. I presume this article was written by a student at the school, or something. I don't know if I have the right to vote here, but I'd delete it. User:Marjaliisa —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You have every right to vote (although a) technically they are not votes and b) you did not actually say "delete"). But many thanks for the info. which confirmed my suspicions. -- RHaworth 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax? Certainly unsourced. JJL 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. There is no need to leave your common sense behind when you come to Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read the definition of patent nonsense. It does not qualify. It is also not clear that it is pure vandalism. No need to rush. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry to go on, but one argument for rushing is to try and avoid Google noticing. OK, as a schoolteacher, Stephen knows that rubbish like this comes with the job but it is still not nice to find this article near the top of a Google search. ({{Db-attack}} could have been invoked.) (Google retrieved the article eleven minutes after Ginkgo100 restored it!) -- RHaworth 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Oddly modern names for characters supposedly from the seventh century. Clarityfiend 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, should have been prod, as it is obviously made up. Keeper | 76 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention it was a contested prod. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, probably hoax Neozoon 22:40, 19 October 2007 (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.