Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogerurk
From 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No improvements made to the article, no sources found, and no compelling arguments in favor of keeping it. Kafziel Talk 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bogerurk
Game of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Not even an assertion of notability ("ultimate" not counting). Sadly not speedyable, due to the bizarre narrowness of A7. David Mestel(Talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not bizarre at all. It's quite proper. One pair of eyes is not enough for reliably determining notability, as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explains and as Fetch (game) (AfD discussion) attests. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, what I meant was that the fact that A7 only applies to people, organisations and web content, not that it requires no assertion of notability. The latter is quite proper. David Mestel(Talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not bizarre at all. It's quite proper. One pair of eyes is not enough for reliably determining notability, as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explains and as Fetch (game) (AfD discussion) attests. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Crap, hoax! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a hoax, have used it as a teacher and witnessed the use in many other school districts in Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryExitedScholar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. David Mestel(Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - zero sources found in googling. There are no news articles, only the wiki article in a web search, and no hits even through groups (usenet) which means we can't even find unreliable sources let alone reliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I too have heard of its existence and will search for some reliable sources. Keep for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan2522 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The only thing Google turned up was the Wikipedia article itself. The article has virtually no information, and as such adds little to no value to the 'pedia. In the absence of any demonstration of notability or sources of any kind, I think a deletion is in order. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (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.
