Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlighting (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- Keep I believe that this is notable. I wouldn't call it self-referential to talk about Wikipedia if Wikipedia was involved in the event. To me, a self-reference is more along the lines of "this wikipedia article is about greenlighting" sort of thing. — Jesse's Girl | Talk 15:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Jesse's Girl. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:14:23 Z
- Delete for reasons given my Nandesuka. --Tabor 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not everything is notable, and this is no more notable than what I had for breakfast.!Ben@liddicott.com 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We've had this debate before, and it's stayed twice. Notable in Slate.com., as per Jesse's Girl and Snowspinner.
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.