Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash intro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 27 October 2010 (Closing debate, result was merge to Adobe Flash). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 01:48, 27 October 2010 by Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was merge to Adobe Flash)
- 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 merge to Adobe Flash. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Flash intro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not notable; doesn't even have a single source, let alone reliable secondary sources. It is also obviously an original research. It's more like blog post than an encyclopedia entry. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skip intro, merge to Adobe Flash. Sourceable concept but much better for unsourced content to be "skipped" from article creation and face the music at a main article. Then we can wait until the main page is done loading .... JJB 03:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- merge to Adobe Flash DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, be sure to source everything you merge, guys. Materials lacking source are often challenged or deleted, remember? Fleet Command (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Adobe Flash. This article is original research and does not deserve its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree with JJB. Skip intro. --Nat682 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (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.