Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:23, 3 October 2005

Greenlighting

It's been several months since the first succesful deletion of this page. The Slate article notwithstanding, it is still not notable: I'd say it is a prime example of a hoax that fails the "will anyone care about this a year from now?" test. Therefore, I'm nominating the newer version of this page for deletion also. The original deletion discussion can be found here --Nandesuka 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I think this article should be deleted as both a neologism (for the term), and because the hoax itself was nonnotable. The fact that the Slate article itself gained traction from the earlier hoax Wikipedia article just adds an element of "unclean hands" to the whole charade. Nandesuka 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable. Not a perma-stub. Snowspinner 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greenlight. It looks like SomethingAwfulcruft, and it's blatantly self-referential. --Idont Havaname 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-referentiality is not a deletion criterion, and the major source is not Something Awful but Slate.com Snowspinner 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is notable enough. ~~ N (t/c) 17:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is notable enough and should not be erased Yuckfoo 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 **Self-referentiality is not a deletion criterion, and the major source is not Something Awful but [[Slate.com]] [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. I think this is notable enough. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 17:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
+*'''keep''' please it is notable enough and should not be erased [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)