Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selegine

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 Speedily deleted per CSD A7 by JIP. Non-admin closure. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selegine

Stub article for a fictional drug; unclear notability and no sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability policy. Diana LeCrois (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only unreferenced and unnotable, it doesn't even explain what this stuff does in the context of the movie. I'm inclined to say speedy on account of nocontext. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and SNOW this) – per Dennisthe2. TheAE talk/sign 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sources? If I upload a screenshot, you hosers are going to just delete that because on wikipedia, fair-use isn't "good enough" these days. But, the source is the movie itself - obviously - where the text of the drug's name appears. Either way, the movie TOTALLY SUCKED and you can bet your ass I'm not trying to get anyone to waste their life watching it, my only concern is that I felt the movie somewhat slandered Selegiline by way of having an EXTREMELY similar name. Zaphraud (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Template:Cite video to use the movie as a source. A screenshot is not required. However, this does not address the issue of notability. 164.38.32.28 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the anon user said. That said, too, your attitude is not helping your case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the edit summary for the initial version of the article indicates that it was only created so that Google would pick up on it...so I dare say this borders on WP:SOAP. Matt (talk) 01:35, 29 April 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.