Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E gameshow

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

E gameshow
Mostly content-free article to give an excuse to post a link to an external site. Al 12:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Bad dic def which explains the obvious. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I am totally ungrabbed by this. Alf 19:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Seems to be a recreation of "E-gameshow" which was up on VfD before. Sdedeo 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete The only way people will FIND this page is if they explicitly search for "e-gameshow". This page adequately (if primatively) describes what an e-gameshow is and furnishes an example of one that isn't mired with popups, as well as provides a link to the usage of the term in a news article.  The definition of an "e-gameshow" is no more obvious than the definition of "e-mail".  If someone is asking themselves "what is an e-gameshow" and they search on Wikipedia and can't find an answer, isn't that basically censorship and data-flow constriction?  More effort should be put into improving the entry, but deleting it would be a pointless gesture.  11:40, 25 August 2005 (Unsigned from 68.126.252.150 which is the IP address of the author of the article in question.)
 * Do not delete the 3 arguements in favor of deleting it are "[it] explains the obvious", "I am ungrabbed by this", and it "seems to be a recreation of something else".  The the definition is NOT any more obvious than any other defintion.  2)  the wikipedia does not exist in order to "grab" people.  3) It's a word that has been used in multiple locations.  4) can you confirm that it is a recreation of the thing you mentioned before, or is this just wild speculation?  I agree that it should be improved, not deleted.  Wikipedia exists to expand knowledge, not limit it based on popular opinion.  1:56, 27 August 2005. (Unsigned comment from 69.232.56.215, whose only edits are this VfD.)
 * Delete - advert - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neologism and/or unheard of concept. --SuperDude 08:04, 30 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.