Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolensidekick.com

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 speedy delete - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stolensidekick.com

Article on subject already covered in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 and and wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolensidekick AFD debates, both of which to delete; the first one having to be protected. Hbdragon88 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a message board for retrieving misplaced or stolen sidekicks. -- Koffieyahoo 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a specific lost sidekick that had wide media coverage. It's not a lost and found. Dgies 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as re-creation. Fan1967 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruffft -- Librarianofages 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE, I don't get the point of this story. I'm sure people lose cell phones in cars all the time, and people are able to track them down. Bid deal this got a lot of press. Also, this lost all crebability when they decided to auction off the phone and keep 2/3rds of the money while even t-mobile decided to match 1—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.70.139 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom and Fan1967. (This topic is more than covered at T-Mobile Sidekick). Agent 86 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. WarpstarRider 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A well documented story on internet vigelantism and memes which had mainstream media coverage in an NYTimes article, a MSNBC segment, and an interview on WINS radio. That's a lot more public notice than most of the things in Category:Internet memes ever got. Can anyone explain why this is less worthy than everything else in Category:Internet vigilantism? Dgies 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as cruft. Unfortunately, I don't see as this being the next Densha Otoko. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, no, this again? Delete for the reasons I voted to delete its other incarnations. GassyGuy 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation per Fan1967. We shouldn't even discuss the merits of the case here; take it to DRV if necessary.Melchoir 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it dead. Again. Maybe a wooden stake will be necessary this time. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-G4, recreation of deleted material. Tagged. --Coredesat talk 04:46, 29 June 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.