Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TINDOMH

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TINDOMH

Admitted inside joke, and thus inherently non-notable. Zero Google hits. Not a speedy candidate, unfortunately. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism and nn. meme. Alphax ^τεχ 10:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 12:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (with alteration), as it is a valid subset of a recognised University society; lack of Google reference does not mean it doesn't exist; inside joke reference surely modifiable. Predglyn, 14:06 GMT, 24 August 2005.
• Delete as of yet, existence is not the only criteria for a Wikipedia article. If it is a subset of another society then this information can be placed there. --TheMidnighters 16:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With creation of CUAS page and reference accordingly this page should be retained.seanbert, 20:44 GMT, 24 August 2005.
  • The above statement is User:seanbert's 5th edit out of 6 total, all relating to this VfD and related articles. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I looked TINDOMH up on Lycos and got 4 hits. Incidentally, if you're using Windows 98 you'll get 3 hits with Google as well. For some odd reason XP produces different results: (try it, if you don't believe me!) Also, if it's a university society I don't see why it shouldn't be listed, (especially if Sir Patrick Moore is a member as it might be of interest to fans of his.) Alidixon, 20:55 GMT, 24 August 2005.
  • The above statement is User:Alidixon's 1st edit out of 3 total, all relating to this VfD and related articles. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: regarding the above Lycos hits, even assuming 4 hits were of significance, two results (at least on XP) are blank pages and the other two do not actually contain the text. Any way you slice it, this is a deleteable neologism. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:09:10, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally nn. David | Talk 20:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter dross. --Agamemnon2 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Source Article now makes external link reference. Feel free to delete null article. User:seanbert
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 06:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Blatantly nn; it'd be nn even were it stemming from the House of Lords not a uni society. Delete. Shimgray 14:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 07:30, August 30, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.