Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldergame
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletionnomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- here's the condition, if you delete this article, then empower me to delete all of your surnames. i think would be fair, right? so what that waldergame is played on an open field without restriction? yes, the consequence of this pure adulterated folly does lead to some nonsense, but that is not what the game is about. anyway, i've said pretty much all i have to to say at this juncture. --Camilla Walderhaug 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. And created by User:Waldermaster. DJ Clayworth 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn, load of rubbish CLW 15:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN --Rogerd 01:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I read an article about waldergame in the times newspaper a few weeks ago. It appears to have a dedicated following and is quite popular. Perhaps it should stay. or perhaps not:)
- Despite the fact that the article is poorly written, I believe the intrinsic intellectual merit of the game itself has some value. The second point I'd like to make is that Amazon.com's Alexa claims to monitor 12million sites and that by their calculations, considering the current trends in the distribution of internet traffic, anything that consistently scores within the top 100,000 ranked sites
is what they term 'meat and potatoes'. As of 2005/October/06, if over 3 internet users in every 1 million over a 3 month average was reached by waldergame, and the general trend in popularity has been exponential since its begininning, is it 'not-notable'? Tough call. I think it's a wait and see. --Charliebobtonysteve 12:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN. It's not a tough call. If and when it becomes notable, it gets an article. Right now, it has no claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until it becomes notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google gives 9 unique hits for "waldergame", indicating that whatever publicity this might have received hasn't really gained traction. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense at the moment. Banes 09:28, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.