Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sui-Chan

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sui-Chan

Originally tagged for speedy deletion under non-existent criteria (please don't do that). Bringing here as I question this notability of this "meme". ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Apparently this was a big deal or something. No reason for it to 'not' be recorded. Knowledge is Power! Komodo 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Komodo
• delete. No sources, no indication of significance. Full of OR. An A7 speedy would not be unreasonable IMO. Friday (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom - no sources, no assertion or documentation of notability. Brian 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• KEEP Note, the original source of the Sui-Chan posting was actually deleted on Stickam, and the page with the Sui-Chan coverage was replaced by that flashing Hello Kitty thing! ViperSnake151 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  Are you saying that even whatever questionable sources might have existed for this at one time have lost interest and moved on? Wouldn't this indicate that this "phenomenon" is pretty insignificant? Friday (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, I think it's still significant because those changes are what made the entire thing seem more like a hoax every day! Then, it turned out to be one. Alot of people believed it! ViperSnake151 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete another internet hoax without notability. What makes this notable/significant/important? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lets wait more than 2 days before saying a hoax page is some sort of internet phenomenon. DrunkenSmurf
• Delete per notability; other Internet "phenomenon" passed over with far more credibility. —LactoseTI^T 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per DrunkenSmurf. --Nishkid64 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The fact of the hoax is not especially a hoax, but really, who cares? User claims he or she will commit seppuku on camera, and then doesn't. Whoo, that's sure news. - Corporal Tunnel 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & salt the earth I'm for the article IF it has notability, which at the moment, it doesn't --DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the usual internet-meme reasons: no verifiability, no reliable sources, no notability, and no sign that anyone will care next week, much less a century from now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's plenty of sources... I'm close friends with a few of the people behind it all... but the rest of your statement is true --DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOBODYCARES. Wait, haven't we written that one yet? — Haeleth Talk 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believed it, but now it's just another internet hoax that didn't get any mention outside of the net.two fish 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:11, 24 August 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.