Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blobhead

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blobhead

Prod was removed, but put back on. I changed it to AfD per the rules. Prod reason was "no sources, <700 Google hits, enough of a neologism to rate removal." No opinion as lister. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this time, the article has been revamped; I advise all that have commented or intend on doing so on taking another look. LordRobert 12:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom HawkerTyphoon 18:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, unless references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be provided. -- Whpq 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prodded this, but the article's editor removed it without addressing the issues. Rklawton 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment prod was deleted due to no votes after 5 days. Said isses have been looked at in part but will need more time to find more extensive sources. There is also >700 Google hits.LordRobert 12:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a dictionary of totally unnoteable

slang - Blood red sandman 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a well known term in NSW. Article should be reavaluated in one months to allow author to identify sources. In the mean time "reference" tags should be added. Elias Daemonwing 07:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is Daemonwing's only contribution to Wikipedia to date. Rklawton 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree that article needs sources, which are available but are obscure and hard to find. Agree that article should get a 'references' tag for a period of time. I am article's main editor; prod was removed per 5 days with no consensus.LordRobert 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiable at all, and the map is particualrly suspect. JPD (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unreferenced and unverifyable. Web searches show no hits that refer to this. Nothing in the news. It may be real but without references it can be real elsewhere. The map is very odd too - I'm not sure that that many people live in the NW of NSW. Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Things made up in school one day - at best Wiktionary--ZayZayEM 10:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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.