Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajkun Ballet Theatre
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 speedy deleted as G11. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ajkun Ballet Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable references; walls of promotional, unverified text; can't find assertion of notability (tl;dr); created by someone with an obvious conflict of interest (WP:COI) — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors are expected to read articles before nominating them for deletion, however long they are. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You just made that up because you have an infavoring view of me based on previous interactions. If someone made an article with 500 pages worth of gibberish, no one would be expected to read that before making a judgement that, yes, this should be deleted. Show me a policy that says I should read the whole thing, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. I did read a lot of it, just skimmed through the rest. — Jean Calleo (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I made up the obvious requirement that articles should be read before being nominated for deletion? Get real. I also don't feel inclined to read the whole article, so I am not offering an opinion as to whether this should be deleted. Let's leave the discussion to editors who have read the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So if someone did post 500 pages worth of unverified text in an obviously unencyclopedic manner, it should stay on the grounds that no one can be arsed to read through it? You're being ridiculous or obviously biased against me. Thankfully the article is deleted already, and, again, I did read a necessary portion. — Jean Calleo (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I made up the obvious requirement that articles should be read before being nominated for deletion? Get real. I also don't feel inclined to read the whole article, so I am not offering an opinion as to whether this should be deleted. Let's leave the discussion to editors who have read the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You just made that up because you have an infavoring view of me based on previous interactions. If someone made an article with 500 pages worth of gibberish, no one would be expected to read that before making a judgement that, yes, this should be deleted. Show me a policy that says I should read the whole thing, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. I did read a lot of it, just skimmed through the rest. — Jean Calleo (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: speaking as someone who did skim the whole article and who, by the way, has seen this group perform, I successfully nominated this for speedy deletion as spam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.