Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediation

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. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for speedy, citing "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," but I do not believe that is grounds for a speedy. I do, however, believe this should go. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Delete! Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletionista (talk • contribs) 1:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This user has only engaged in AfD-related edits (including a bad-faith nomination, AFIAK. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that comment I made was removed by Deletionista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and replaced with vandalism, just FYI. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete seems bad faith banta 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: See also Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, cute idea though. Melchoir 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense/invention.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I originally pegged this for speedy deletion (as I enjoy parusing the newly-created pages to see what's awesome and what's patent nonsense), and I stand by that decision. I mean, this will be deleted no matter what, but the article is non-notable, made-up garbage. As a result, I am going to still vote speedy delete. -- Kicking222 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy. Clear childish nonsense/non-notability/vanity. Renata 03:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sandonar
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per (aeropagitica). SorryGuy 06:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 07:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not for things made up in (insert place here) one day... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NFT even mentions this bloody game, can't people read? Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That was actually just added today. --Rory096_(block) 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete The game idea itself has been on WP:NFT for a good while now. Not only does the Wikipediation article use the example in WP:NFT as its game idea but it also outright admits to being something made up in a school one day. Shadowoftime 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well yeah, NFT obviously applies, but this particular thing wasn't on it until the 22nd. Also, NFT is not a WP:CSD. --Rory096_(block) 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't in WP:NFT by this name at the time, but there is no doubt that this is "that infamous game" per WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps BJAODN? Colonel Tom 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's that funny. I, therefore, doubt it is fit for BJAODN. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe this is one of those games they play at the sandbox, but I'm too lazy to check. --Rory096_(block) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy There should be a bot for this sort of thing... --The Missing Piece 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wikipedia:Wiki Game, it seems to be what they're doing. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• God speedy the delete of this vanity-cruft. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not widespread enough. Arctic Gnome 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The same old posterboy from NFT in a different package. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, WP:NFT. --Rory096_(block) 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.