Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schastyenium

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. SNOW. It falls btween the gaps at CSd; the solution to such rare instances is not to stretch a speedy category for something rarely needed,, but to remove the material here quickly. IAR speedys are not allowed, but SNOW here does just as well DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schastyenium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable fictional compound created for an exam at a school. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patently non-notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't come up with a speedy category. This is about an imaginary compound which was part of an exam paper. It achieves fewer ghits than my Downby in the swamp (and that's saying something...). As second supporter of the nomination, I can't really call for SNOW, or can I? Peridon (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—per above and what WP:DUH should link to, but seems that it does not (good thing i previewed). i had the same problem with the speedy categories. i suppose that as third, perhaps i can call for SNOW?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can - I'm not yet sure how many cries of SNOW it takes to arouse the ~~gods~~ closing admin. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that there isn't a speedy category for things like this mean that there is a gap in the templates that needs fixing? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to at your talkpage. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that you guys are fucking retarded arguing over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.146.109 (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be right. We didn't create the article, though.... Peridon (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, we're not arguing, we're agreeing. Does that make a difference? Peridon (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we're fucking retarded for agreeing in a manner that could be seen by others as arguing?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with liberal flakes of crystalline hydrogen dioxide. Wikipedia is not for things someone made up one day. Yunshui (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit count shows an interesting story... http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Schastyenium [[[Special:Contributions/77.75.167.102|77.75.167.102]] (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2011 (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.