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. --Core desat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elementie[edit]

I'm not exactly sure whether this article is an attempt at describing classical elements or whether it's gamecruft or similar, but the classical elements are already covered in far greater detail and clarity elsewhere on Wikipedia and the article title isn't really suitable for turning into a redirect. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nom would appear to be correct. I didn't see any indication that 'elementie' was anything substantial from a quick Google hunt, nor does 'star elements' get much. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely incomprehensible (game)cruft, without any context; not quite nonsense yet close enough. -- Ekjon Lok 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the author of this article also added a section "Classical Elements in New Zealand" to Classical Element, see this diff. This addition is completely unsourced, and unless someone knowledgeable about these things can confirm it, it should be removed. -- Ekjon Lok 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At first I pretty much agreed with Ekjon Lok's argumentation. Non-sense, literally. The article was created June 13, 13:09 and nominated for deletion June 13, 13:56, not even an hour after creation. I have no clue about the subject matter myself and cannot tell if it might turn out to become a useful article. That is why I argue for keep. Keep and watch! It is too early to tell if the article is notable and useful. If nothing clarifying has been added to the article in a few weeks it can still be deleted. I have put it on my watchlist already. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article itself states, these are "fictinal" sic and there is no sourcing given to even tell us what fiction they come from. My suspicion is that they're someone's personal concept they're trying to promote. Trying to WP:AGF, but I've seen a few too many of these types of articles. -- Kesh 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional? From what source? JJL 03:22, 14 June 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.