Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMT-05 Hildolfr

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, but Jtrainor is right when he points out that there's no deadline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YMT-05 Hildolfr

YMT-05 Hildolfr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete fails WP:FICT. Also question of WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Gillyweed (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have a to say that the creation of this article may be in violation of the ArbCom injunction. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:N and WP:FICT. Also please read the injunction regarding such articles while arbcom is on progress. This one was created after the injunction took force, and its creation is as much a violation as would be mass deletion/redirection. Edison (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Text of injunction For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Where does it say one cannot create them? DGG (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment' Do you agree that any articles which were created after the injunction was issued are fair game for AFD, in any case, since they were not "currently existing" at the time the injunction was issued? Edison (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep and tag for expansion It was only created two days ago. Give it time. It's rather a little bitey to nom it only ten minutes after creation.

Though it is my personal belief that it is probably better to merge it. Jtrainor (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (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.