Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chicken Alliance

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. Mailer Diablo 12:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chicken Alliance

Not encyclopedic (WP:WEB) geocities internet cartoon/website/card-game. feydey 22:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and Wikipedia is not a How to guide. 82.16.87.28 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPERIALX5: If thats a reason to delete a page, than many pages should be considered. Namely any one about a card game or website. Homestar Runner Pokemon Trading Card Game

True, but there's a third reason we haven't mentioned yet: Pokemon and Homestar Runner are famous. Your site and game are not. Come back when your counter has broken six digits. (Delete.) Marblespire 04:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPERIALX5: I still don't see why this would have to be deleted. And the site did have 5 digits in the counter. Do people just run around looking for entries to shut down? I find that a little rude and unnessesary. Also, just because you don't know about this game and site doesn't mean others don't. I also don't have the capability to use MediaWiki and host my own.

• Keep looks quite funny. helohe (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this is a card game that I know of and play, and I believe it deserves a place in the Wiki encyclopedia. Squirrelfiend (User:Squirrelfiend's 1st, 2nd & 3rd edits. ~Mbsp)

• Delete, per 82.16.87.28. Stifle 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete. Imperialx5 (talk) 1:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems harmless enough and notable enough to keep. Turnstep 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, further note the low quality "Originaly a book report project for English class based off the book Murder on the Orient Express". The topic is not encylopedic, the article looks like it was written during a recess break in the playground. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Pete.Hurd 05:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IMPERIALX5: Just because thats how it originated means nothing.

• Delete — Sure, it means something. WP:NFT makes it clear that made-up games don't deserve a spot on Wikipedia unless they are notable. And in your case, it is not. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, Not for things made up in school, website doesn't me WP:WEB, previous discussion's keeps were all original article edits/sockpuppets/specificly asked by creator to vote. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, only 93 Google hits. -Satori ^(talk) 17:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn site hosted on geocities for Pete's sake --Ruby 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kareeser and Lightdarkness. James Kendall [talk] 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, people do run around looking for entries that violate the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines to shut down. And your opinion that it is unnecessary has been noted. Go express it on the deletion policy talk page, too. -ikkyu2 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting enough, but not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. –Sommers ^(Talk) 18:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Patent nonsense. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Once upon a time there was a boy named Jon Caswell." My vote was made right there. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nonnotable. —ERcheck @ 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 07:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kareeser, Lightdarkness, and James Kendall. --Nkcs 07:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 02:11, 20 February 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.