Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpeedaMay


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

SpeedaMay
Neologism/hoax. No references provided, and Google search yields no results. -- PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until this urban legend is listed on Snopes, there's no chance that this is more than a story someone concocted.  If it hits Snopes, it might be worth an article. Mo0 [ talk ] 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, I definitely see where you all are coming from, but don't be so hasty to delete. This may be an issue of "SpeedaMay" being misspelled (certainly seems like an odd word and I didn't get any Google results either).  Also, Snopes doesn't exactly list everything, although they ARE a valuable resource (and I share it with my students in English).  This may indeed be nonsense, but further research is needed, I think, before deletion is necessary.  172.173.36.198 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, further research (and references) will be needed in order for the article to be kept. Your argument puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Delete as hoax unless supporting references are added. B.Wind 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a point, don't you? Let's see if the original author (or ANYONE) updates within the next 24 or 48 hours (depending on admins and policy).  I maintain an open mind--infused with the intellectual responsibility and healthy skeptisism that makes Wikipedia work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.156.113.115 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-01 04:51:19 UTC
 * I do... and you made it. Please re-read my vote. B.Wind 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 13:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article cites no sources, and (like Peruvianllama) I can find no sources. The article also directly implies, by stating that there has been no media coverage and that Snopes hasn't documented this, that there are no sources to be found.  The article is thus unverifiable, pretty much by its own admission. Delete. Uncle G 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's an obscure regional thing? Also, the way they capitalized the term is really weird...I wonder if there's a reason for that beyond the eccentric whims of the original author.
 * OH, BY THE WAY...forgive me if this is a stupid question, but what does "Per nom" (above) mean?
 * per nominator Uncle G 21:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, UncleG!!!
 * Delete per nom. Izehar 15:34, 4 December 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.