Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovegirl

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 of the debate was Deleted. A copy of goddess with the author's girlfriend added - touching, but not encyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovegirl

De-prodded by anonymous (likely article's creator) without explanation. This article is an out-right copy of Goddess, with the only difference being that it's a few days out of date now (and that "goddess" was changed to "lovegirl" in a couple of places). Non-notable neologism does not require a redirect. No definition at dictionary.com or urbandictionary.com, first five pages of google hits are totally unrelated.

The only page that links to it is a subpage of the article's creator's userpage, which is about his girlfriend. The subpage was originally an article that was moved to userspace for being non-notable. Same for the user's main userpage. User's only edits are related to these pages. (Ok, so this is more than is necessary to show why the article should be deleted, but can you really blame me for being annoyed by this kind of thing?) --Icarus 07:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't this article be speedied, per WP:SNOW? There is no way whatsoever that it will be kept. My two cents, of course... Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing can be done per WP:SNOW. WP:SNOW is not policy, guideline, or, really, anything. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, entirely useless article. JIP | Talk 08:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wanted to tag the article for speedy deletion, to be sure, but it doesn't seem to really fill any of the criteria for speedy deletion. It's not exactly patent nonsense, not exactly a non-notable bio... I was hoping it would quietly die from the prod, but of course the creator had to go remove that template for no good reason. There really should be some ammendment allowing prods to be re-posted if they're removed without explanation by the article's creator, because I see that happen a lot. I was unaware of WP:SNOW, but I hope the next admin to stop by decides to invoke it. If ever there was an appropriate circumstance, this would be it! It's not actual policy, though, so I'll understand either way. The important thing is that whether it takes another hour or another week, this vanity/girlfriend-cruft/pain-in-the-butt-waste-of-time-to-even-delete article will bite the dust. --Icarus 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Girlfriendworshipcruft. I'm happy they're in lurve, I really am. Delete, speedily if there's any regulation that'll allow it. Vizjim 09:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a pointless copy-and-paste of an extant and encyclopædic article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• While I wish the happy couple a long and happy relationship, it isn't really the stuff of an encyclopedia article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• I will love the admins who delete this article. :-) Kimchi.sg 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speed delete its vandalism, no? JeffBurdges 11:56, 18 May 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.