Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoon and Suger

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon and Suger[edit]

AfD nominated by Nut-meg with reason: "Spoon and Suger recommended for deletion because it is obviously a self promotion page. The user that wrote the article has the same user name (paperjammer) as the filmmaker's You Tube account. The user portrays his film as being a "cult classic", even though it is only a month old and has not had a significant number of views on the site. Also, the article is fraught with NPOV issues. I fixed some of it, but it's really not worthy of wikipedia." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable, not to mention that 1/3 to 1/2 of the article is crystal-balling. Otto4711 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with Nut-meg. Vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Self-promotional, non-notable, OR, crystal-balling, filled with exaggerations ("controversial", "cult classic"). Venicemenace 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User took off the required AfD tag and reverted back to all of the NPOV problems that had been corrected.nut-meg 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under the US constitutions 1st amendment they are allowed to put whatever they please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drfreid (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Mm...not quite. The First Amendment says the government can't arrest him/her for what he/she says; it says nothing that forces Wikipedia to have an article about this band. —ShadowHalo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting free speech. Wikipedia is not the government. Nor is it a vehicle for high schoolers to promote their home videos on YouTube. nut-meg 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (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.