Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapist (card game)

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 Speedy Delete. This is a procedural closing; the article was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard at 17:09, 21 February 2008 as G3 Vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist (card game)

Card game invented this year with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notice how the game has no references whatsoever and that it will be very unlikely that the article will get references. Definitely not in the realm of notability. I can't even believe such a weird game was created (well, actually, I can, but that is a whole different story) Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utter trash and nonsense. PROD was removed without cause or explanation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Darkspots (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Last section makes it clear that this is a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax article, looks like it was made as a joke. --Borgarde^talk 03:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put the prod tag on it in the first place, and suggest that it doesn't meet WP:Notability or WP:RS, among others (I can't think of the link for [Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day]). For the first time ever, I'm regretting that sheer bad taste isn't a cause for speedy deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks -- and if I'd been sufficiently awake to look above, I could have found it <sigh>. I'm writing that one down. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Pointless waste of server space. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a poor joke. No reason this can't be quickly deleted. The article even says it was just thought up by a couple of students in the last few weeks. No notability whatsoever. Alberon (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it goes into a lot of detail without having any sources suggests it is either OR or a hoax. Either way it's not notable or verifiable and all of these are reasons to delete it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its REAL It is a real game and i have played it, and i know Mr Wells is in the process of gaining a patent. --DÅπñŸ (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute horseshit. JuJube (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
''Not a Hoax it is not horseshit, it is a real game!--DÅπñŸ (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...and everyone's already said why, so I won't repeat it. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Obvious WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (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.