Content deleted Content added
Line 235:
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''nn hockey player''}}
:No, but it could be in AfD.
::Why do you think this should be AfD rather than PROD? (I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to understand your reasoning.)
An article about a minor Harry Potter character.
Line 240 ⟶ 241:
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''We have too many articles about Harry Potter characters.''}}
:No, too many harry potter caracters is not a valid argument to delete an article. But the notability could do it because that it is minor.
::Good answer.
A boy-band who won 7th place in a TV talent show but haven't released any albums.
Line 245 ⟶ 247:
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''No evidence of notability per [[WP:MUSIC]].''}}
:No, but AfD might be good for notability.
::Why do you think this should be AfD rather than PROD? (Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to understand your reasoning.)
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.
Line 250 ⟶ 253:
{{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.}}
:Yes it fails notability and there must have references.
::Yes. I also think this is a really great example of writing a good PROD reason, because:
::*The nominator explains exactly what the problem is and links to the relevant guideline, so that the creator can go read it and try to fix the problem.
::*They explain what action they took themselves, to check that there aren't any sources easily available.
An article about a radio presenter that's poorly written, has a few reliable sources, but has a "Childhood" section that's unreferenced.
Line 255 ⟶ 261:
{{Tlsp|Proposed deletion|2=concern=''Poorly written, needs more references.''}}
:Yes, it could be PROD for that concerns.
::Just to be clear, the article does have enough reliable references to show it's notable, but it has these big problems with writing style and the unreferenced childhood section. Do you still think that this PROD reason is good?
Sorry, I wrote three questions at once and can't work out which ones you're saying yes/no to. Could you make your answers more detailed please?
| |||