Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennykrieg

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 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bennykrieg

Does anything really need to be said here? WP:OR, WP:V, you name it. I can't think of a speedy category for this but I wish I could. Crystallina 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Does anything really need to be said here? You bet it does. 'Bennykrieg' is a work of art that must be preserved for the nation! Edit: by gtheritage care of IMDb. There, is that better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.8.106.67 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-20 11:51:40 (UTC)
• Don't delete the article -JRyan JamesRyan 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's gotta stay - it's a phenomenon of the internet - b.musso
• Note all the above comments are from anonymous editors. Crystallina 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note - this article is credible and does not deserve deletion from wikepedia due to the comments of one individual. The anonymity of the editors should not devalue their opinions. Bennykreig is a fast growing craze across the internet equating the lines of spamdexing. The individual who complained does obviously not understand this. There is no question that this article deserves a place on wikipedia. I have my own wikipedia account although I do not have time to create my own user page (as I'm sure is the case for many of the above) but my username is x_stoic_x150. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X stoic x150 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-21 23:24:31 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well. Um. Whoops. No wonder nobody was seeing this. Crystallina 13:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the random anons attempting to vote above, I'll go with delete. Highly non-notable (if this... whatever it was... even existed, would it not get more than one Google hit, which is WP itself?), completely OR, and unverifiable. -- Kicking222 11:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Some discussion forum users have made up an idea, named after a discussion forum user that they don't like, and written about it directly in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things made up on a discussion forum one day. The article cites no sources and is quite clearly original research. The place for this is the authors' own web pages, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, at best a neologism. Is this close enough to an attack page to be speedyable? — Haeleth Talk 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Not much of an internet phenomenon with zero Google hits. NawlinWiki 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The only thing more ridiculous than this article are all the "votes" to keep. Danny Lilithborne 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism with no google hits -- Whpq 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- it's nothing but an attack page. -- ArglebargleIV 14:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It should probably be speedied as nonsense...which it patently is. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, get rid of this junk. RFerreira 22:58, 26 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.