Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Henry

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 snowball delete on the basis of discussion below and/or speedy delete, on the basis CSD#G11. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Henry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fictional character in a non-notable series of books that hasn't been printed yet. Fails WP:BKCRYSTAL and there's lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Authored by a SPA with a probable COI. Speedy was declined on the technicality that the subject is fictional. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But you could have left the PROD tag in place! Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have. But it takes nothing for the SPA to remove it or recreate the article. If we're going to wait 7 days, it's better to do an actual AfD, which can't be contested for no reason 6 days later or merely recreated only to start the AfD process. The PROD process takes just as long and is easily circumvented. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about every single PROD tag placed on every article. AFD consumes people's time and attention, and PROD was instituted to avoid that where possible. If the creator had removed it, then, fine, the article would have gone to AFD. By removing a PROD tag because someone else might delete it defeats the whole purpose of PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the PROD process has left me less than confident in it. I think it's a bit of a waste as long as PROD's can be removed for no reason at all. But that's another discussion for another place. My AfD nomination was not improper by any means. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are dissatisfied with the process, I recommend that you read WP:POINT before expressing that dissatisfaction by interfering with the currently prescribed and legitimate use of the process only because you aren't happy with it. I understand that under the guideline, you can remove a PROD tag. But if you started removing lots of PROD tags based on your principle, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person who considers it disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you just started talking about "if" I start removing a lot of PROD's, but find it odd that I mention an "if" about the PROD tag getting removed for no reason? I didn't interfere with anything. I'm sorry you got your feeling hurt, but there's nothing improper about what I did. If you still feel it was improper, I'm sure you know where ANI is. If it's not worth taking there, then perhaps you'll consider putting the whip away and stop disrupting this discussion with your complaints. Or at the very least, use a talk page. By the way, my nomination wasn't to make a point, it was to be more efficient. Try to AGF next time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Character from a book series that, even if it exists (Google is unaware of its existence), won't be published for several years. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting this coming up while a discussion is being lost at the CSD talk page about a proposed new criterion for fictional characters. I declined the A7, but by heck, if there was a case that cried out for a speedy this is one. I'm quite pleased that this has come to AfD so more people will see it. I don't consider it disruptive to apply a recognised procedure that would probably have to be invoked anyway when the author removed the prod. Anyway, this would be a classic A7 if A7 covered fictional characters, or an A14 if that had succeeded. No notability - not even a vague claim to significance. Peridon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to being curious as to how the release is pending, and copyright 2016, but not expected out for three years. Self-publishers are never that slow, and even the most long-winded regular publisher doesn't sit on stuff for that long. My feeling is that the writing isn't yet complete, and the author is trying out the market before wasting time finishing it. I could be wrong. Could just be allowing for writer's block. I know the feeling sometimes... Peridon (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete,Delete, Delete What absolute dreck. I wish the speedy deletion would have just gone through for this, the character doesn't even exist yet in book form.★Trekker (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, snowy, snowy, snow, snow, snow, can an admin please close this early? does not meet WP:GNG, way too soon, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2016 (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.