Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbrakinetic
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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I'm as open to extreme possibilities as any other X-Files fan, and the concept could deserve an article even without any evidence that there is such a thing (we've got plenty of those). But there should at least be evidence that someone else thinks there's such a thing. Delete unless it can be sourced and notability established. --Trovatore 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and by the way, it's also copyvio --Trovatore 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the writing is terrible, and full of POV. They also form plurals with an apostrophe. :( --MacRusgail 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Umbrakinesis and Umbrakinetic get a hundred or so hits on Google. This article is terribly written, and probably at the wrong place (Umbrakinesis would make more sense). However, I'd rather there was a well-written NPOV article than nothing at all. Sadly, no one seems knowlegable enough to do it. See also -kinesis#Umbrakinesis --Sum0 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing prevents someone from writing such an article later. Or now, for that matter. I think "someone could write a good article on this topic" is almost always beside the point in AfD discussions. --Trovatore 22:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I suppose we could also consider redirecting to -kinesis. --Trovatore 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. Personally, I think the best course of action would be to redirect this and Umbrakinesis to -kinesis, although what's there doesn't make much sense either. --Sum0 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junk --Rogerd 13:32, 22 October 2005 (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.