Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle party

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 Keep. Cuddle withdrawn. El_C 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuddle party and Cuddlebuddy

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle puddle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw Cuddle Party - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete cuddlecruft? Opabinia regalis 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cuddle party, speedy delete A7 Cuddlebuddy. I have duly tagged Cuddlebuddy for not asserting any reason to exist at all. Cuddle parties do exist, or at least have in the past; I've read articles about them. But as written, the article is spam, and I don't think this short-term fad deserves an article anyway. --Aaron 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The closing admin of the Cuddle puddle AfD said not to use that as precedent to delete others about the same topic. Cuddle party seems referenced and notable. It may need to be cleaned up, but it seems fine to me. Cuddlebuddy could be deleted, but I'm also wondering if it can be merged with Cuddle party. - Lex 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor am I using it as binding precendent. IMO, these could go as that did. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Cuddle party. I'm still deciding on the other one. - Lex 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep certainly seems verifiable, based on all the media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for Cuddle Party. They're a bit passe', but they were a notable phenomena. - Richfife 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cuddle party, per media coverage. Merge Cuddlebuddy into Cuddle party. And a group hug was had by all...--Roninbk _{t c e #} 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, merge and redirect cuddlebuddy to cuddle party. --- RockMFR 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passed N. Arbusto 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, had quite some media attention for a short while, Delete/merge/redirect/dowhateveryouwantwithit the other. --Conti|✉ 05:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both unencyclopedic and unnotable; media coverage does not confer notability. Eusebeus 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 'Cuddle party' per Richfife --Richmeister 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cuddle party, Merge and redirect cuddlebuddy. JubalHarshaw 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep cuddle party; request nominator withdraw both and relist cuddlebuddy on its own. JDoorjam Talk 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Completely unnecessary, two is quite few and the subjects are certainly congruent. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete Cuddlebuddy; closing admin, please note that all these keep votes are for "Cuddle party." JDoorjam Talk 05:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well now hold on a sec. We've got Merge votes for Cuddlebuddy, which is very different from Delete under the GFDL. Don't mis-characterize the debate... --Roninbk _{t c e #} 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is plainly a notable and citable topic. I'm OK with merge as a compromise, however. Vectro 17:05, 11 October 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.