Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Spiral
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Time Spiral[edit]
Unverifiable; content is primarily original research. Everything after the first two sentences appears to be completely made up, and even the name "Time Spiral" is unverifiable. EvilZak 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Take a look at the [MTG Salvation] Rumor Mill in the forums for verification. —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete crystal ballage --Ruby 14:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I remember seeing the original source of this info, which was an official WotC survey that stated that those who were surveyed could win booster boxes of 2006 sets, and one they mentioned was Time Spiral.--Bedford 14:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless and until Wizards of the Coast officially verifies it. As it is, the "verifying" site's getting sued by Wizards, so this might just be a copyvio even if it is true. -- Grev 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Grev. freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable.android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep; now verifiable through the link Nightstallion has provided below. I would still prefer that this article be moved to Snap (Magic: The Gathering), since the name isn't really "official" until Wizards releases it through the normal channels, but I won't mind terribly if it remains with its current title. On a side note, linking to the source may prove difficult; is there somewhere this document can be accessed without having to jump through hoops to do so? android79 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note that I was the otiginal contributor to this article and, against the rules for deletion, I was never notified about the proposed deletion by the person who decided to arrogantly propose the deletion.--Bedford 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That particular bit of AfD "etiquette" is rather new; you can't really blame the nominator for not notifying you, and calling the nomination "arrogant" is just silly. Articles that violate WP:V ought to be deleted, and it looks like this one does. android79 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Please let me know if a reliable source is found, so that I can revise my vote. Stifle 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think I've got a straight source; try to access the document linked to here (direct link: this). According to people in the forums, in this lawsuit filed against the user known as RancoredElf (who regularily provides information up front through anonymous sources, and who's right around 98% of the time), WotC accidentally confirms the next "large" set to be called "Time Spiral"; I'm afraid I can't verify this currently, as I've got a nasty fileblocker working against me here at work, so I'd appreciate it if someone could verify that for me. If it's true, that should be verification enough; lawsuits are easily verifiable through findlaw.com. —Nightstallion (?) 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The linked document is a 404. Stifle 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, it's good. Keep, verified. Trim the speculation a bit though. Stifle 18:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Stifle, and also that future events ought to be acceptable. After all, we have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, and that's "crystal ballery" at its long-running finest. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:05, 22 February 2006 (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.