Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superthread

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superthread

A neologism. A couple of occurrences on google, but nothing of substance. The principal meaning of the term appears to be of a high tensile strength fibre. BillC 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --BillC 20:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete forumcruft. This appears to be a conceit among the users of the Led Zep forum - whereas in places like uk.rec.sheds it is done quite unconsiciously and without the neologism. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep This is the only place I could find information on "superthread" for my internet technology class at Georgia Tech. My teacher mentioned it in a lecture today about international forums. -- TechStudent 24:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC) This comment and vote entered by User:72.147.100.54
  • Delete neologism MONGO 06:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dminor 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This is the only thing on the internet I could find on "superthread". It is new internet slang that is widely talked about especially on international social network internet services. This is an imperative entry for Wikipedia.Dminor 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - per google hits with explanation here [1]. Its a real term in common usage. Note to admins: I am not the guy who wrote the other comments! LOL. Suggest possible manipulation of vote by falsely claiming sock puppetry. Zordrac 13:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes for closing admin

  • User:Dminor (contribs)has no history outside of this article/AfD, the comment & vote was originally signed User:Erick, but left by anon User:72.147.100.54
  • The vote signed User:TechStudent was left by the same anon User:72.147.100.54
  • Anon User:68.212.213.248 has an edit history on the article and vandalised this AfD at least once
  • Anon IPs User:72.147.100.54, User:68.212.213.248 and article creator User:68.212.213.248 are all registered to Bell South. None of these IPs have any edit history outside this article and this AfD.

I suggest that the evidence supports these being the same user. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a real term, referenced many times and searchable on the internet. But explanation of what it is is hard to find. Zordrac 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of the some 660 hits on Google, only a small fraction match the meaning given in this article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
If you check the contributions for the above users, they are only the article and this AfD. It looks like meat/sockpuppetery to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
All but the first sentence of the article is about a specific thread in a specific forum. Is this the topic of the article, or is it about very long threads in internet forums in general? Moreover, the first sentence defines 'thread' (not 'superthread') as exists already at thread. The reference quoted by Zordrac defines the term as a global 'index' thread, which neither describes the thread in the Led Zep forum, nor the concept of very long threads. The Led Zep forum named in the article has a post asking for people to come to Wikipedia, and tells them how to register, edit and vote. --BillC 18:42, 1 December 2005 (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.