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. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a person essay about a popular TV show. Not a plausible search term. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedied or prodded right away. If there are any sources to verify this, then it should be merged, but the nom is correct, as it isn't something one would really search for. fetchcomms☛ 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedy deleted. Not notable, not verifiable & open to OR. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think headband color is ever mentioned in the Naruto manga or anime. It certainly isn't a notable topic even within the Naruto manga/anime, let alone in the real world. Furthermore, from what I have read and watched of Naruto, I don't think the characters even do have different colored headbands like this article suggests. Regardless, this is entirely original research on a non-notable topic. Calathan (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colors do very from character to character, but the "bandanna" (for lack of a better term) tends to go with the character's outfits. It other words, it's part of the character designs and has no other significances beyond that. —Farix (t | c) 00:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable original research, no sources. JIP | Talk 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which speedy deletion criteria could this fall under? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think it falls under any speedy deletion criteria. It certainly isn't in one of the categories covered by A7. Calathan (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not outright nonsense or vandalism -- it's just not good content. As such, it's not suitable for speedy deletion (except as part of snowfall). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To nominator, this is an obvious candidate for PROD rather than a full AFD. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 19 December2009 (GMT)
Delete as described above. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could make very little sense of the article, but I don't it barely scrape by speedy deletion for patent nonsense. Maybe no context would be a better criteria, but that may be stretching that criteria as well. But ether way, this isn't an article, it's just random babble. —Farix (t | c) 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Naruto is a well known anime but that does not mean wiki needs every little thing about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2009 (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.