Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Hairy Object

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. Coredesat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big_Hairy_Object

Big_Hairy_Object (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:Neologism WP:RS Stub category since April. A Google search reveals only a few pages, most of which are references to Wikipedia. Verdatum 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. However, if adequate sources are found, then merge with God object. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jonathan 02:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Minimal notability and no reliable sources. Does seem to be a neologism. Tim Ross·^talk 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into God object. Bearian 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Could you give some support for why you feel this way? -Verdatum 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as totally redundant to God object and introducing neologism without any sourcing to suggest it meets the notability guideline or to satisfy verifiability/no original research policies. If a good source could be found, then perhaps a brief mention on the God object page. Other than that, there's no new information here that you can't find anywhere else on the Wikipedia. mike4ty4 —Preceding comment was added at 09:57, 4 December 2007 (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.