- 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 Move to Draft:Hummer Team. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hummer Team ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. I can find a lot of blog and wiki material on this group but there is nothing in reliable sources. Maybe there is something in offline gaming magazines. Jbh Talk 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Move to DRAFT:Hummer Team with a stipulation that it not be moved into article-space without either an WP:AFC review or a WP:Deletion review and that a notice (such as an {{ afc comment}}) be put at the top of the draft article pointing back to this AFC. This is a brand-new (less than a week old) article. Deleting a newly-created page when it should be sent to Draft: space is WP:BITEy.
- Procedural comment: @
Ethan The Cool Guy and
Jbhunley: if both of you find moving to DRAFT: acceptable AND there are no other significant editors of the page or its talk page AND there is nobody here who expresses that indicates they might object to moving the page, Jbhunley can speedy-close this as "withdrawn - unanimous consent from all affected editors to move this to draft" (along with a touch of
WP:Ignore all rules to keep the wiki-lawyers at bay
). If there are any objections or anyone with a stake in the game doesn't affirmatively consent, the discussion will need to run the usual 7 days though.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Davidwr: No objection in principle, see below. If @ Ethan The Cool Guy: does not object and no one !votes something other than 'Userfy' in the interim, I will ask an admin to close it as Userfy and move it to Draft: space, just to keep everything clear from a procedural perspective. Jbh Talk 00:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Update. Jbh Talk 00:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure if the original author is paying much attention to the article. The creation of the article in one edit is their only edit to Wikipedia [1] and they did not respond to a PROD [2] I placed three days ago. The article was deproded [3] by an IP doing mass deprods as discussed here. I do not know if this affects your suggestion. Jbh Talk 00:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- My removal of the PROD template is legitimate. As stated above, deleting a newly-created page when it should be sent to Draft: space is WP:BITEy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 ( talk) 01:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, your removal is within the policy for PROD, that is why I took the article to AFD. Your removal was counterproductive since you obviously have no intention of doing anything to improve this article or the others you dePRODDed. You did not even leave any reason you why they should be kept or how they might be improved. PRODs are much less bitey than AfD but you took the author's ability to show they had not abandoned the article away with your little deprod campaign.
Consensus in this [4] ANI thread is that it is WP:POINTy and borderline disruptive as it was in this [5] ANI discussion when you were doing it as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F07A:973D:2CFD:EEE6, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E and 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 a few days ago. Also an editor who creates an article with only one edit, includes a template a new user is very unlikely to know about and makes no further edits is not very likely to be a newbie. More likely they are either a banned user, a paid SOCK or someone evading scrutiny. Although not many people want to evade scrutiny for creating an article of questionable notability that is usually reserved for people who are trying to do other things. Jbh Talk 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, your removal is within the policy for PROD, that is why I took the article to AFD. Your removal was counterproductive since you obviously have no intention of doing anything to improve this article or the others you dePRODDed. You did not even leave any reason you why they should be kept or how they might be improved. PRODs are much less bitey than AfD but you took the author's ability to show they had not abandoned the article away with your little deprod campaign.
- 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.