Content deleted Content added
→Spot the difference: another question |
→Challenge: Prod quiz |
||
Line 222:
Wait. For the instructions, you said which religion that I prefer but I am an [[atheist]].
:I'm an [[agnostic]]. It was just a figure of speech really.
===Prod prod prod===
Unlike the BLPPROD, where the reason is always ''BLP with no sources at all'', for PROD you need to write the reason in. Comment on each of the following prod nominations. Are they fine? Would you phrase it differently? Should the article be PRODed at all- if not what should be done instead?
An article by a new contributor, with one source, about a hockey player who doesn't seem to be notable (but claims enough significance to avoid A7).
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''nn hockey player''}}
An article about a minor Harry Potter character.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''We have too many articles about Harry Potter characters.''}}
A boy-band who won 7th place in a TV talent show but haven't released any albums.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''No evidence of notability per [[WP:MUSIC]].''}}
An article with no references about a new steel-making technology called Expatial which has been developed by a company called Extreme Performance Alloys, Inc.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''This appears to be a non-notable neologism and fails [[WP:NEO]]. I find no relevant matches in GBooks or GNews archives. If this were an accepted industry term then I would expect some technical publications with ISBNs to use it.}}
An article about a radio presenter that's poorly written, has a few reliable sources, but has a "Childhood" section that's unreferenced.
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''Poorly written, needs more references.''}}
__NOINDEX__
| |||