Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dynamic Gallery of Thoughts

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 redirect to Havoc Unit. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dynamic Gallery of Thoughts

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable terminology in WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any "disruption" and the term "unquestionable" is ludicrously overblown, so no, not even close to being a rationale. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do is to take a look at the word "ludicrous". It is defined by m-w.com as, "1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; 2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish". It is readily apparent that such language does not belong in a collegial community discussion. In asserting that there is no disruption to be seen, the statement makes itself an example of a self-referential oxymoron. Removing the layer of hyperbole, there is still the implication that the term unquestionable disruption has no sufficient operational definition. I have previously responded on this point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis. If 350 such AfD nominations in three days is not unquestionable disruption, then how many more such AfD nominations would be? 1000 in three days? 3000 in three days? So it doesn't work to deny that 350 in three days is unquestionable disruption, without having an alternate operational definition. As shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis, 350 nominations is such a large number of AfD nominations, that the initial capacity of the AfD tool we have is exceeded. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Havoc Unit (the article about ...And Oceans who recorded this album). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Havoc Unit or delete, if necessary. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 2013 (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.