Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy bunny gets lonley
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Deb
Fluffy bunny gets lonley[edit]
NOTE: I have redeleted this page according to the speedy deletion guidelines. Deb 17:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Prior discussion
Fluffy bunny gets lonley was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedily delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Zero Google hits (even with right spelling). It's been put on Category:Hoaxes, but surely that's for hoaxes in the real world, not on Wikipedia. sjorford 10:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- BJAODN. — David Remahl 10:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This bad joke/hoax page has been speedy-deleted. Kappa 11:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Wasn't strictly speediable, but I'm not going to complain. — David Remahl 11:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't to it, but it looked like a speedy candidate under criterion 2, though with a stretched interpretation. Geogre 16:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Case 2 is "test page". Did you mean case 3 (vandalism)? Either way, this was not a speedy. Please let the VfD process work. Rossami (talk) 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If it was vandalism, why woudn't it be a speedy? The only alternative would be BJAODN, right? Kappa 23:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If it were obvious vandalism, it would be a speedy. I disagree with the characterization of any hoax as obvious vandalism. This one seems obvious but there have been many others that seemed obvious but weren't. Hoaxes are currently being discussed as a separate CSD category. I believe hoaxes should suffer the full VfD. Rossami (talk)
- If it was vandalism, why woudn't it be a speedy? The only alternative would be BJAODN, right? Kappa 23:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Case 2 is "test page". Did you mean case 3 (vandalism)? Either way, this was not a speedy. Please let the VfD process work. Rossami (talk) 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.