Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreamery
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 redirect as a useful search term. W.marsh 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Dreamery
This article about a comic book does not assert notability. It is unclear why it meets WP:BK. PROD was contested in February. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is not stated, thus it should be deleted per WP:Notability. Icestorm815 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have a copy of this someplace. Delete as not notable - small press, small run, and not really covered enough to generate reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Eclipse Comics. We don't need afd for this sort of stuff. The first rule for people when nominating for deletion should be, can I redirect this somewhere. Hiding Talk 11:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since the PROD was removed in February, I assume it's a somewhat controversial issue, so it might warrant a discussion. --B. Wolterding 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since the prod was removed in Feb the article has haedly been touched and I don't see how a redirect avoids a discussion. Have a look at be bold and the being bold, revert and discuss pages, they outline an approach where you make an editorial decision and then take it from there, rather than look straight to discussion. Like I say, for me these days my deletion checklist tends to be, can I clean this article up, if so tag for cleanup or do it myself, can I redirect or merge it somewhere, if so I do it, and then do I think about deletion. If anything warrants a discussion, you'll find out soon enough on Wikipedia, and it's a shame this tidy little stub is going to get deleted when there's no need for it to be and there are far worse articles out there. Anyway, that's just my thoughts. Hiding Talk 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since the PROD was removed in February, I assume it's a somewhat controversial issue, so it might warrant a discussion. --B. Wolterding 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I had a quick nose around and found some links. I can't see any reason this couldn't be expanded into a larger article. (Emperor 16:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
- Delete Does not have the sources necessary to satisfy WP:BK or the more general WP:N. Jay32183 03:51, 12 November 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.
