Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zelda Age

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 deleted, and then copied to the author's userspace. DS 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Zelda Age

OR, no sources. Originally PRODded and PROD2'd, the original author removed the tag and made a personal attack on the editor who was gracious enough to let them know that the prod had been placed on their article, going so far as to say, I have original content, and you cant stop me. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — Delete per nomination. Signed by a certain "Michael, Boise, ID", and the overall article is highly speculative and seems more like a blog rant than an article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• [edit conflict]Delete - yep, it's original content alright. The catch is that we can stop him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is going to meet with the creator's approval, but I've suggested userfication on the article's talk page. He seems attached to the work (which is probably a recipe for disaster around here anyway), so perhaps this would be the fairest solution. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per above, stupid article. Missvain 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete per all above. It does sound like a blog as Kungming2 pointed out. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. "I have original content, and you cant stop me." lolol! Pwned. I think he fails to realize that Wikipedia reports facts, not opinions. Axem Titanium 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. By the author's admission of original research on his talk page, and his personal attacks against the users who tagged the article for deletion -- going so far as to say they were jealous of his writing skills (and gee that one HUGE paragraph of an article really shows great writing skills)! Wavy G
• Delete per nomination - original research - Additionally the cited sources speak nothing of the article's content only it's context. - wtfunkymonkey 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, fails WP:OR --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO -- Librarianofages 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NEO / OR. Mishatx 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, theres 3 minutes I'll never get back again (per all above) :( Wikipediarules2221 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Why wasn't this speedied?? Spawn Man 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Stukkk 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ahh yes, the Zelda age came right after the Jomon period if I recall. (How the heck is this related to Japan may I ask?) Thanks, Spawn Man 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unverified original research. JIP | Talk 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original Research, etc. Spinach Dip 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research. Atlantis Hawk 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - OR, unencyclopaedic tone. BTLizard 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Percy Snoodle 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Pure originial research. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt - You can't fairly even call this screed research. Original blatant nonsense, maybe. We need a policy page called WP:WTF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elaragirl (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 November 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.