Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimp Nipples

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimp Nipples

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC --Doc (?) 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I made this page, just cuz I wanted to add some info about the band, delete if u wish I know its not very informative I dont know enough to write a detailed description. Plus I didnt read the posting rules sorry... i thought ithe idea was you put a bit in and other people filled in more till it grew... :-/ I dont see how its nonsense. It might not me notable or varifyable though, I cant find a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.18.3 (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-18 14:15:38.

Hi there, User:82.69.18.3. You're absolutely right, it's not nonsense. That's why none of us calls it that. And you're also right about a basic WP mechanism, everyone is welcomed to contribute their bit to improve what is a great human endeavour — to make important information as freely available as possible. While we're doing this, however, we need to follow certain rules so that we can be reasonably sure that the information it provides is true. One of those rules is to source things that we write. Another is that we write about things that are notable, because no encyclopedia can (or should) be riddled with every bit of available information simply because it is information. (That can be the goal of another kind of project, but that project will not be an encyclopedia). Those are the reasons this article is up for deletion. Please understand none of us have anything at all against you or this band, and we'd love to have your contributions about to WP. And don't worry about writing, too much. If it is acceptable stuff, WP is designed to keep it, even when it is highly tentative. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  15:22:30, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Nonsense. Ok, but that first paragraph is pretty wacky. Just NNBV, then. JDoorjam 20:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --IByte 21:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this qualifies for speedy under patent nonsense. See WP:PN. This does not meet either of the two criteria. But it does violate WP:N and WP:V, ie. nn. Thus, delete. Regards, —Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:39:06, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.