Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Wendsdays

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. Shereth 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Wendsdays[edit]

Non-notable, unorphaned and no sources/references found. It might be an original research. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Short term even that doesn't require its own article and probably doesn't even warrant mention in another article about Universal Studios HollywoodRcurtis5 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Don't Delete This is information I would like and need to know about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myselfthankyou (talk • contribs)

Yes, but that is not a valid reason: there is all sorts of stuff which I would like to know but which is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is the sole edit so far made by Myselfthankyou. Ladyof Shalott 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin THere is also a redirect at Wicked Wednsdays. Do you guys always check for redirects to pages that are deleted? I've never considered that... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some tools do it automatically, and it's generally good practice to check "what links here" after a deletion. If we miss it, it generally shows up in Special:BrokenRedirects and gets G8 speedied a little later, so it's no big deal either way. ~ mazca ^talk 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, the article has now been moved to Wicked Wednesdays. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--non-notable and unverified/able. Disclaimer: I asked for speedy deletion, and then again after the template was removed. I guess I must really want this deleted--third time now. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable trivia. Ladyof Shalott 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete the information on the article is factual. It can be proved with the references. It was an actual event that took place that should at least be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.109.150 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was also an actual event was you vandalizing my user page in exactly the same way as User:LSlavin13 did. Coincidence? I think not. Bad manners? Definitely. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* I would hardly call it vandalism. I saw the graphic that was removed. It was a little innapropriate. Those bad words can be disturbing to some people. And this page is to discuss the deletion of the article. We should not bring in other discussions. User:Myselfthankyou

Considering that (counting this one) you have made all of three edits on Wikipedia (well, under this name...), you'll forgive me if I don't take schooling from you on Wikipedia guidelines and rules of behavior. By the way, sock puppetry is directly relevant to this AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*I may be new, but everyone starts out that way. I have found that you have to earn your respect on this site. You started out just like me with only a few edits. But i can't if i don't make theese edits. I won't have a big number later. I am sorry if I offended you in anyway in my last comment. And, you have no proof that Lslavin13 and that unidentified person are the same person, so lets not start making accusations. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.109.150 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 July 2009 and deleted by the same anonymous IP user 16:27, 5 July 2009

::*I may be new, but everyone starts out that way. I have found that you have to earn your respect on this site. You started out just like me with only a few edits. But i can't if i don't make theese edits. I won't have a big number later. I am sorry if I offended you in anyway in my last comment. And, you have no proof that Lslavin13 and that unidentified person are the same person, so lets not start making accusations. Thank You. User:Myselfthankyou —Preceding comment added by Myselfthankyou (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 July 2009 and deleted by the same user 16:33, 5 July 2009

I don't think anyone has argued that it was not real. However, it takes more than mere existence of something for us to keep an article on it. Ladyof Shalott 01:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in this edit [1] Myselfthankyou changed the signature of one of the above comments, to attempt to make it appear that the comment had been posted by an anonymous user at 98.165.209.150, whereas in fact the IP address in question was 98.165.109.150. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2009 (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.