Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Tuesday


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyber Tuesday
nn neologism. Stifle 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above reason ^demon 17:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete 64.59.209.89 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a Cyber Monday but this one is total made up bull. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment please note that that Cyber Monday is currently a candidate for AfD as well. -^demon 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 18:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Approve Cyber Monday is shop.org's bull. Cyber Tuesday is actually based on facts.
 * Previous unsigned comment posted by Frankencow, the original author of the article. -^demon 19:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a fairly strong disparity between Google's interpretation of Cyber Tuesday and Cyber Monday. Regardless of Cyber Monday's AFD outcome, Cyber Tuesday is still NN. HackJandy 21:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (What does "approve" mean in this context?) rodii 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (I'm not sure why "approve", but is anyone else puzzled that users voting to keep their own inappropriate articles never say "keep" - it's always "do not delete" or "retain" or something?) &mdash; Haeleth Talk 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - mainstream media is ignoring it in droves, unlike Cyber Monday. Can Cyber Wednesday be far behind? 147.70.242.21 22:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article makes it clear that the phenomenon does not exist, or does not exist yet, and is being promoted by the also-dubious Orange Party in order to make some unclear political point. Furthermore, an article without verifiable references is bad enough, but when an article contains a link entitled Click Here to read the source article, and I click on it, and it is not an article about the existence of "Cyber Tuesday" but merely an article about the non-existence of "Cyber Monday," I have to believe that whomever inserted that link is not being straightforward or reliable, casting doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2005 (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.