Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 cent trek


 * 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. Sr13 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

10 cent trek

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Looks made up. One would think something as allegedly popular would have at least one hit on Google (checked with several variations and spellings). In its current form, it fails verifiability. Pekaje 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as unsourced, unverifiable. --Huon 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NFT-type article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, sounds made up - 10 pence trek - the term that purports to describe the practice's UK analogue - is certainly utter bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources to verify the subject, which is most likely made up. Acalamari 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No Google hits. --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete from here and add to Urban Dictionary, but WP:ILIKEIT and I'm going to go do a ten cent trek right now. Capmango 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DONT Delete sources are coming!!!!, --User:G se7en 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — G se7en (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just to let you know, this is the sort of item that would only be kept if you can provide multiple independent reliable sources, which generally would mean a news or magazine article specifically about this phenomenon (not just mentioning it in passing). Local newsletters, blogs, etc. would not count.  Given the complete lack of web hits or news hits, it seems unlikely to me that such sources exist.  If this is a brand new idea that is just starting to catch on, Wikipedia is not the place for it.  Capmango 18:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom., and prior comments. If multiple reliable sources can be provided, the article should be reinstated. Per Capmango's comments, however, this seems highly doubtful.--JayJasper 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Being Australian, i've never heard of this before, and the lack of WP:RS to support it suggests it's in the WP:CB category. Thewinchester (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:MADEUP. Euryalus 21:24, 7 July 2007 (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.