Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted hay ride
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted as nonsense, and redirected to Haunted hayride. - Mike Rosoft 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Haunted hay ride
No ghits for this, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete current contents, Redirect to Haunted hayride. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I doubt if this is even a real term. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Shave and redirect. How does this crap get all the way to Afd? --- RockMFR 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and recreate as a redirect to Haunted hayride. --Coredesat 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and then redirect per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm actually amazed that this isn't up for speedy deletion. A completely useless 20-word article. Spinach Dip 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would've happily speedy tagged it, but what would it fit under? It's not really nonsensical (the text is coherent, even if silly), and there's no "no assertion of notability" category for neologisms. WP:CSD specifically states that even obvious hoaxes aren't speedy candidates just due to the hoax factor. It also seems to provide enough context not to fit under {{db-blank}}, even if barely. As many of these as there are, I think "neologism that doesn't assert notability" should be a speedy criterion, but as of now it's not. If you know of one that does fit though, let me know, I see a lot of this stuff on NP patrol-usually the prod just gets left, but in this case it didn't. Seraphimblade 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't fit the criteria exactly, but it is partly nonsensical, un-notable, and has virtually no context. In my opinion, that should make it worthy of a speedy deletion. Spinach Dip 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would've happily speedy tagged it, but what would it fit under? It's not really nonsensical (the text is coherent, even if silly), and there's no "no assertion of notability" category for neologisms. WP:CSD specifically states that even obvious hoaxes aren't speedy candidates just due to the hoax factor. It also seems to provide enough context not to fit under {{db-blank}}, even if barely. As many of these as there are, I think "neologism that doesn't assert notability" should be a speedy criterion, but as of now it's not. If you know of one that does fit though, let me know, I see a lot of this stuff on NP patrol-usually the prod just gets left, but in this case it didn't. Seraphimblade 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm trying {{db-nonsense}}. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Speedy delete as having no meaningful content. So tagged. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - this has now been added to WP:BJAODN. --- RockMFR 10:49, 10 November 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.
